# Revised Challenge Ratings/Encounter Levels (pdf)



## Upper_Krust (Mar 30, 2003)

Hi all! 

I would be interested in hearing some feedback on the following excerpt from the *Immortals Handbook*.

Essentially it comprises a few of the appendices, concentrating on how to accurately determine Challenge Rating and how to make changes to Encounter Levels. 

The benefits of this system to Challenge Rating are manifold. The changes can be used, to not only better quantify CR (removing the guesswork), but also to: create Templates; outline Effective Character Levels and far more accurately delegate the effects of Monster Advancement.

The benefits to Encounter Levels are even more far reaching since they correct the current flaws in the rules; function at *any* measure of power and actually save epic rules from becoming myopic and unnecessarily (and wrongly) limiting what characters of a certain level should and should not encounter.

Anyway, let me know what you all think.

Thanks.


----------



## Alchemist (Mar 30, 2003)

I gave it only a quick skim, and haven't been following the cr-adjustment discussion, so my insight is limited.  However, I can say some things.

I'm not much for the title font you used.  all the l's look like t's.  It's not comfortable to read.

That would be my biggest criticism.  I like what you've got there, and I could see myself using it to cobble together some baddies to try it all out and see how it works in the field.


----------



## kkoie (Mar 30, 2003)

Well I looked over your exerpt.  My initial reactions are as follows.

 I realy don't like the header font.  While stylisticly its great, I think it's over used.  Perhapes it should be restricted more.  Not used as a general header, but only for things like introducing the chapters or sections. Also, on the side panel where you have the main title of the book in grey, then the title of the book section in black, I really don't like how the section title is imposed over the book title.  Perhapes if they were seperated?  Or if the Immortals Handbook title was of a more bolder font?

 The CR system.  Wow talk about details.  You pretty much leave nothing to chance with your system when it comes to rating CRs.  My only criticisms are that for one thing, it may seem a little too complicated for some people.  Also, the ratings for moderate challenges, they are awfully high.  I myself would switch the numbers, or just drop the moderate ratings, and stick with the difficult ratings.  For one thing, I think a 60th level party would beat the living snot out of a ancient gold wyrm.  Second, no DM wants to wait til the character is 40 or 50th level before he can throw one at his party.  There for emphasis should be placed more on the level at which the party can initially face the creature.

I personally, after comparing how you've done up the dragons, and wotc, would have to agree more with wotc's standpoint.  Dragons are not random encounters. 9 times out of 10, a party will know they are facing one and would've prepared accordingly.  Therefor their advanced preparedness should be taken into account, and their CR dropped a few notches to ensure they are of the proper difficultly.  Dragons are too cool to be shuffled in with the rest of other monsters as a typical encounter.  They should be kept on that slightly higher mantel, with the lowered CR to increase their challenge.


----------



## Alchemist (Mar 30, 2003)

kkoie said:
			
		

> *I personally, after comparing how you've done up the dragons, and wotc, would have to agree more with wotc's standpoint.  Dragons are not random encounters. 9 times out of 10, a party will know they are facing one and would've prepared accordingly.  Therefor their advanced preparedness should be taken into account, and their CR dropped a few notches to ensure they are of the proper difficultly.  Dragons are too cool to be shuffled in with the rest of other monsters as a typical encounter.  They should be kept on that slightly higher mantel, with the lowered CR to increase their challenge. *




Not to start a highjack, but...

The same argument could be made for the Terrasque.  Or any other big, bad once in a lifetime monster.  And that makes it a story call, not a mechanics call.  As such, I think dragons should be evaluated on the same basis as any other monster and the DM should be aware that it's going to be easier to beat because the party is prepared, and act accordingly by adjusting XP for the encounter.  pre-adjusting the CR assumes the DM isn't capable of making those connections.  I don't want my hand held for that sort of thing.

And now, on with the discussion.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 30, 2003)

Hi Alchemist! 



			
				Alchemist said:
			
		

> *I gave it only a quick skim, and haven't been following the cr-adjustment discussion, so my insight is limited. *




Thats okay, no hurry for feedback, I don't expect everyone to absorb it all in a few minutes. 



			
				Alchemist said:
			
		

> *However, I can say some things.*




I'm not much for the title font you used.  all the l's look like t's.  It's not comfortable to read.

That would be my biggest criticism.  

Okay thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. I see a few people have mentioned the font, I may remove it from the third subheading, I just haven't found a good alternative yet.



			
				Alchemist said:
			
		

> *I like what you've got there, and I could see myself using it to cobble together some baddies to try it all out and see how it works in the field. *




Hey thanks for the compliment, I think you will find it works quite well, and is a necessity at epic levels.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 30, 2003)

Hi kkoie mate! 

I hope you and the family have been keeping well!?



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *Well I looked over your exerpt.  My initial reactions are as follows.*




Sure fire away, and much appreciated.



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *I realy don't like the header font.  While stylisticly its great, I think it's over used.  Perhapes it should be restricted more.  Not used as a general header, but only for things like introducing the chapters or sections.*




I probably agree, I just haven't found a replacement font I liked for the subheadings yet.



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *Also, on the side panel where you have the main title of the book in grey, then the title of the book section in black, I really don't like how the section title is imposed over the book title.  Perhapes if they were seperated?  Or if the Immortals Handbook title was of a more bolder font?*




The reason behind that idea (and with the page numbers) was to highlight the dichotomy of the Immortal-Mortal relationship. Where one is bigger than the other but both rely on one another. That was also the reason behind the font choice - if you will notice the letters combine upper with lower case.

I may change the side bars to just say the section and the bottom bars to say the chapter.



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *The CR system.  Wow talk about details.  You pretty much leave nothing to chance with your system when it comes to rating CRs.*




Well I showed a previous version (this is version 4) to Andy Collins and he remarked how it wouldn't work unless you added a number of things. Sufficed to say I think I have covered all his suggestions and then some. 



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *My only criticisms are that for one thing, it may seem a little too complicated for some people.*




Well its actually more simple once you get to grips with the nuances, like relative Encounter Levels etc.



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *Also, the ratings for moderate challenges, they are awfully high.  I myself would switch the numbers, or just drop the moderate ratings, and stick with the difficult ratings.  For one thing, I think a 60th level party would beat the living snot out of a ancient gold wyrm. *




Exactly, they would defeat it fairly easily, using approx. 20% of their resources.



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *Second, no DM wants to wait til the character is 40 or 50th level before he can throw one at his party.  There for emphasis should be placed more on the level at which the party can initially face the creature.*




But you have overlooked one of the fundamentals of my rules:

Encounter Levels are relative.

If I have a CR 60 monster I know immediately that it will be an EL +2 for a 40th-level party (2/3); will be an EL +4 for a 30th-level party (1/2); will be an EL +6 for a 20th-level party (1/3) and an EL +8 for a 15th-level party (1/4).

So actually my system expands the range of challenges you can set against a party; whereas the core rules limit them unnecessarily and the epic rules strangle them.



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *I personally, after comparing how you've done up the dragons, and wotc, would have to agree more with wotc's standpoint.  Dragons are not random encounters. 9 times out of 10, a party will know they are facing one and would've prepared accordingly.*




Then thats a situational modifier in the parties favour, not _carte blanche_ to WotC to *arbitrarily* increase the dragons CR. Something that actually insults a DMs intelligence!



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *Therefor their advanced preparedness should be taken into account, and their CR dropped a few notches to ensure they are of the proper difficultly. *




See 'Situational Modifiers'. Under the Experience Points (EXP) header.



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *Dragons are too cool to be shuffled in with the rest of other monsters as a typical encounter.  They should be kept on that slightly higher mantel, with the lowered CR to increase their challenge. *




Then individual DMs are free to lower their CR as they see fit. But WotC should not put out a CR they know to be wrong.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 30, 2003)

A lot of fine tuning when into this document!

I like the revised Harm and Heal.  I like the fine distinctions between different kinds of modifiers (insight bonus to AC is worth more than a natural armor bonus, stuff like that).

I have a reservation about the new DR rule; what happens when creatures have lopsided DR's like DR (15/+6) or DR (20/+7)?  I believe some of the baddies in the Book of Vile Darkness had stats like that.  A +3 or +4 weapon would do them normal damage under your optional rule.

Your revised CR's are very useful when used in conjunction with Savage Species; the revised CR is pretty much the number of levels in a monstrous class.  (often it is right on!- or rather, WotC managed to get it right some of the time).

I think, though, that some of the higher CR's might be a little bit too high.  Take the leShay for instance:  it seems to be equivalent to a character around the mid 30's.  A leShay is not a 50th level character- too many of the special abilities have faded away by then.  What good is SR of 42 if your opponents are 50th level?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 30, 2003)

Hello again Alchemist! 



			
				Alchemist said:
			
		

> *Not to start a highjack, but...
> 
> The same argument could be made for the Terrasque.  Or any other big, bad once in a lifetime monster.  And that makes it a story call, not a mechanics call.*




No. A story call is a left to individual situations (see 'situational modifiers'). A monsters CR has nothing to do with unique situations.



			
				Alchemist said:
			
		

> *As such, I think dragons should be evaluated on the same basis as any other monster and the DM should be aware that it's going to be easier to beat because the party is prepared, and act accordingly by adjusting XP for the encounter.*




Are PCs 100% every time going to know they are facing a dragon before they face one!? Quite frankly no! You cannot give that guarantee (especially not at epic levels). 



			
				Alchemist said:
			
		

> *pre-adjusting the CR assumes the DM isn't capable of making those connections.  I don't want my hand held for that sort of thing.*




Surely you are reversing the psychology here. You are assuming the party *always* know they are fighting a dragon beforehand and that WotC are doing DMs a favour, when actually they are saying "we don't think your smart enough to know understand different situations so we will arbitrarily change the dragon CR for you!"



			
				Alchemist said:
			
		

> *And now, on with the discussion.  *


----------



## Alchemist (Mar 30, 2003)

I was arguing on your side, not against it Upper Krust. 

Just to clarify:  I don't think WotC should have tooled back the CR's of Dragons just because the party is probably going to be prepared, using the example that the same argument could be made for Terrasque hunting.  I'm with you, man. It might read a little different from that light.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 30, 2003)

Hi Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *A lot of fine tuning when into this document!*




Thanks! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *I like the revised Harm and Heal.*




I am sure WotC will change both spells in the revised core rulebooks. But it was necessary to change them for Immortals play.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *I like the fine distinctions between different kinds of modifiers (insight bonus to AC is worth more than a natural armor bonus, stuff like that).*








			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *I have a reservation about the new DR rule; what happens when creatures have lopsided DR's like DR (15/+6) or DR (20/+7)?  I believe some of the baddies in the Book of Vile Darkness had stats like that.  A +3 or +4 weapon would do them normal damage under your optional rule.*




My suggestion is that you give then a DR equal to the enchantment bonus needed to hit x5.

eg. 
DR 30/+3 = DR 15/+3
DR 15/+1 = DR 5/+1

I probably should have added that to the document. 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Your revised CR's are very useful when used in conjunction with Savage Species; the revised CR is pretty much the number of levels in a monstrous class.  (often it is right on!- or rather, WotC managed to get it right some of the time).*




Yeah they fluked it a couple of times. 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *I think, though, that some of the higher CR's might be a little bit too high.*




Remember to take into account relative Encounter Levels.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Take the leShay for instance:  it seems to be equivalent to a character around the mid 30's.  A leShay is not a 50th level character- too many of the special abilities have faded away by then.  What good is SR of 42 if your opponents are 50th level? *




All power is relative.

Also remember that the CR designates a moderate encounter.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 30, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Alchemist said:
			
		

> *I was arguing on your side, not against it Upper Krust.
> 
> Just to clarify:  I don't think WotC should have tooled back the CR's of Dragons just because the party is probably going to be prepared, using the example that the same argument could be made for Terrasque hunting.  I'm with you, man. It might read a little different from that light.  *




Oops my mistake dude!


----------



## Alchemist (Mar 30, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hello again mate!
> 
> 
> 
> Oops my mistake dude!  *




No worries.  I was a little confused when you started rebutting me with the same arguments that were running through my head when I wrote that message.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 30, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Alchemist said:
			
		

> *No worries.  I was a little confused when you started rebutting me with the same arguments that were running through my head when I wrote that message.  *




I was juggling responses to two message boards and three people chatting on messenger at the time, I may have been distracted.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Mar 30, 2003)

Just finished.

Some major alterations, all of which I see as logical and approve of. But....(and yes there is one)....you need to clean up the design a little. I know you have heard this from the posts above, it is the font that is a little overused. 

Also, the dotted lines leading to the side notes, they run through sentences and make them difficult to read.

But the actual content of the chapter has improved, and I completely agree with the DR rules you present.

I noticed that all around, the CR of monsters increased, although I admit at first I was skeptical that an Atropal was CR 90! But then I remember my 42nd level party barely surviving an encounter with one, so..... 

Clean it up a little and we will be on our way.

Also - any news of updating the SRD? 

I grow impatient......


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 30, 2003)

Hi Dark Wolf mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Just finished.*




I appreciate the interest mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Some major alterations, all of which I see as logical and approve of.*




Okay.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *But....(and yes there is one)....you need to clean up the design a little. I know you have heard this from the posts above, it is the font that is a little overused. *




I will change the font on the smallest subheading when I find one I like.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Also, the dotted lines leading to the side notes, they run through sentences and make them difficult to read.*




I'll have a think about them.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *But the actual content of the chapter has improved, and I completely agree with the DR rules you present.*




Thanks. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *I noticed that all around, the CR of monsters increased, although I admit at first I was skeptical that an Atropal was CR 90! But then I remember my 42nd level party barely surviving an encounter with one, so..... *








			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Clean it up a little and we will be on our way.*




Sure thing.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Also - any news of updating the SRD?*




Afraid not. The end of April still seems the earliest opportunity for divine intervention.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *I grow impatient......  *




Easy Tiger!


----------



## Cheiromancer (Mar 31, 2003)

So if one were making a Savage Species monstrous class for the leShay, it should have 50 levels?

Back to the PDF...

What do you mean by the side comment on page a1 that "Both Cleric and Druid class levels were evaluated to be CR +0.9/level".  Surely you are not suggesting that clerics are only 90% as effective as regular characters!

Regarding burrowing: you should distinguish between burrowing that can only penetrate soil and burrowing that can penetrate solid stone.

Epic abilities: I think you left out a decimal point for the Colossus's Anti-magic field.  You want "Disintegrating," not "Disintigrating" for the Umbral Blot.

Magic Immunity: why is a golem's total immunity to magic so much cheaper than a rakshasa's partial immunity? 

Under design parameters, Poison. When you say that the primary damage plus half the secondary effect should be less than the creature's HD, do you mean maximum poison damage, or average poison damage?

More nitpicks as I find them....


----------



## Alzrius (Mar 31, 2003)

Hi U_K!

Well, I just got through looking over the document, and all in all I'm quite impressed! It's obvious (even if we hadn't already known) that this is a real labor of love on your part!

Anyway, on to the feedback:

I know pretty much everyone else has said it, but I'll add my voice to the chorus: those header fonts have to go. They're quite hard to read.

Your methodology for determining CR and EL (and all sub-variants therein) is extremely well thought-out and broken down. My general reaction to that section though was, at first, slight puzzlement. While it's obviously useful for building monsters, the immediate use escapes me (save for the section on revised CRs, which I'll discuss below). Certainly, if I were going to design a new monster for my campaign, I'd turn to your Appendices first, but in a book that is, from what I understand, all about epic-level divinity (and such), this section strikes me as being a rather long "Behind the Curtain" section, like from WotC's books. 

Basically, my reaction was something along the lines of "Is all this really necessary? Does the IH focus _that much_ on monsters and CR that it warrants this huge appendix???" I'd expect an appendix that huge for one factor in a book all about monsters, such as _Savage Species_, but it strikes me as somewhat incongruous for a book about gods.

Of course, of much greater use is the section with the revised CRs. This section is definately helpful for a DM, since it "fixes" the CR listings that otherwise were not an accurate gauge of the creture's power. Likewise, the new spells are useful as well. In fact, my only worry here is "How long will this be necessary?" I've mentioned my wonderings about the IH and 3.5E before, and it seems like that these last two sections, more than anything else, will be the ones to be affected by the change, since quite a few monsters and spells will be revised for 3.5E. In the event that that happens that those become closer in line with what we already see here, those sections of the IH then become rather useless. Hopefully, the print version, which you mentioned would definately be post-3.5E, will fix those.

One other thing: I'm not sure I understand what the half-number after the slash is on the revised CRs. You say its a "difficult (possible50/50)" encounter. What does that mean exactly? Is it where the monster isn't fighting to the death, or what? I don't understand why a secondary, half-strength CR is needed.

The DR revision section is a good variant, with "variant" as the operative word. The language of that section makes it somewhat nebulous about whether the IH is using the rules presented there as standard throughout, or if it's just offering a possibility. This slightly worries me. You want the book to appeal to the widest possible audience, which means that, in the basic presentation, it shouldn't have to alter things where not necessary (at least to the degree that only "broken" things are altered). DR is, as WotC presents it, black and white, but its still viable. If the IH opens up using its own revision of DR, people who want to use it normally have to do that much work to "back-convert" DR to the normal system...and if it does that for DR, what else will people using it have to rework to the more familiar ground? Something can be better to use, but it still has to have wide appeal, or it will still fall by the wayside; merit isn't enough.

Anyway, that said, given the amount of work seen here, I can't wait to see the finished product! Keep up the great work!

Oh, as an afterthought: I noticed along the side of the PDF, it said "Immortals Handbook" in grey, but then in a smaller, black font, it said "Book One: Apotheosis". Now, considering that Appendices come at the end of a book...is this a hint that there will be more than one Immortals Handbook?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 31, 2003)

Hi Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *So if one were making a Savage Species monstrous class for the leShay, it should have 50 levels?*




52 (remember it has Fast Healing, so that is +2 ECL)

Remember also that the Leshay already has wealth equal to a 46th-level PC.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Back to the PDF...*




Okay.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *What do you mean by the side comment on page a1 that "Both Cleric and Druid class levels were evaluated to be CR +0.9/level".  Surely you are not suggesting that clerics are only 90% as effective as regular characters!*




No. As I rate the classes they all worked out between +0.77/Level and +0.84/Level (rounding to +0.8, without equipment this is of course). But both the Cleric and Druid rated +0.9/Level (meaning they are +1.1/Level with PC equipment.

So a 20th-level Fighter is CR 20, but a 20th-level Cleric is really CR 22. However, I didn't want to make that intrinsic so I made it optional. DMs can use the information as they see fit.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Regarding burrowing: you should distinguish between burrowing that can only penetrate soil and burrowing that can penetrate solid stone.*




Okay, well I would say base +0.2 (soil), base +0.5 (stone).



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Epic abilities: I think you left out a decimal point for the Colossus's Anti-magic field.*




Nope, Anti-Magic Field (wherein your own abilities are not affected) is the most powerful ability in the current books.

Two things though. It must be noted that in the Immortals Handbook Anti-Magic works on deities! Secondly that the above power also absorbed the Golems Magic Immunity.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *You want "Disintegrating," not "Disintigrating" for the Umbral Blot.*




Oops, noted.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Magic Immunity: why is a golem's total immunity to magic so much cheaper than a rakshasa's partial immunity?*




It was one of those situations where I was caught in two minds.

However the Golems magic immunity should be half total immunity, since it cannot itself benefit from spells.

The problem was I was stuck between a rock and a hard place with whether to have Magic Immunity +0.5/Level of Immunity or +1/Level of Immunity.

I see to have mistakenly opted for both.

I'll have to change the Rakshasa to +4 (instead of +8), the Golem should probably be +2.25, but I'll leave it at +2.5 since there is generally a spell or two that can help and hinder them.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *Under design parameters, Poison. When you say that the primary damage plus half the secondary effect should be less than the creature's HD, do you mean maximum poison damage, or average poison damage?*




Always average, since thats what its rated under.



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *More nitpicks as I find them.... *




Sure. Thanks for the feedback mate.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 31, 2003)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Hi U_K!*




Hi Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Well, I just got through looking over the document, and all in all I'm quite impressed! It's obvious (even if we hadn't already known) that this is a real labor of love on your part!*




Yeah. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Anyway, on to the feedback:
> 
> I know pretty much everyone else has said it, but I'll add my voice to the chorus: those header fonts have to go. They're quite hard to read.*




I'll be changing the smallest subheading (the one which does the list of factors etc.) when I find a suitable font although I'll be keeping the font for the larger headers.

Feel free anyone to suggest a few fonts I should check out.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Your methodology for determining CR and EL (and all sub-variants therein) is extremely well thought-out and broken down.*




Thanks. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *My general reaction to that section though was, at first, slight puzzlement. *




It can take either a few reads or putting things into practice to see all the nuances.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *While it's obviously useful for building monsters, the immediate use escapes me (save for the section on revised CRs, which I'll discuss below). Certainly, if I were going to design a new monster for my campaign, I'd turn to your Appendices first, but in a book that is, from what I understand, all about epic-level divinity (and such), this section strikes me as being a rather long "Behind the Curtain" section, like from WotC's books.
> 
> Basically, my reaction was something along the lines of "Is all this really necessary? Does the IH focus that much on monsters and CR that it warrants this huge appendix???" I'd expect an appendix that huge for one factor in a book all about monsters, such as Savage Species, but it strikes me as somewhat incongruous for a book about gods.*




It was totally necessary.

Firstly the core rules are not very accurate for how to create monsters.

Fact One: Deities can create monsters! Therefore you need valid CR rules. Not only that but you need a valid breakdown incase a player (deity) wishes to (for instance) create a Solar, but augment or modify him in certain ways.

Secondly, many of the core rules CRs are wrong. So you would have a situation whereby players would exploit those mistakes.

Thirdly the core rules for Encounter Levels are so wildly inaccurate that I sometimes have to pinch myself. This is especially noticeable at epic levels where you are hamstrung into  using CR -8 to CR +8 opponents. Which is ludicrous when you consider one level = one CR. I mean a 59th-level character is not really that much more powerful than a 50th-level character. But according to the official rules its the difference bwteen night and day! 

I remember revealing as much to Andy Collins on his Forums and I think he was shell-shocked how far off the mark they were.

So all the above needed sorted, otherwise you are never going to get Immortal roleplaying even remotely balanced, and added to the higher you ascend the more you constrict your options - whereas you should be expanding your options.

eg. Under my auspices a 60th-level party could face anything from CR 15 to 240 (EL -8 to +8). Whereas the official rules suggest they should only receive EXP for CR 52 to 68.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Of course, of much greater use is the section with the revised CRs. This section is definately helpful for a DM, since it "fixes" the CR listings that otherwise were not an accurate gauge of the creture's power.*




Thanks.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Likewise, the new spells are useful as well. In fact, my only worry here is "How long will this be necessary?" I've mentioned my wonderings about the IH and 3.5E before, and it seems like that these last two sections, more than anything else, will be the ones to be affected by the change, since quite a few monsters and spells will be revised for 3.5E.*




Well the monsters are not important, since I have refered to 3.0. Everyone knows that.

Additionally I would advocate you use my rules for Damage Reduction over 3.5s. Since 3.5 retains all the flaws of 3.0, they just lowered the numbers.

The spells (and items*) are a different matter. They will likely stay 'in' for the pdfs but I may remove them for the print version which will come out after 3.5.

*A two-page section I removed from the pdf at the last minute because I wanted to review it.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *In the event that that happens that those become closer in line with what we already see here, those sections of the IH then become rather useless. Hopefully, the print version, which you mentioned would definately be post-3.5E, will fix those.*




Absolutely. However, I will most likely retain the list of revised monster CRs, since those will still pertinent if you want to create 3.0 monsters.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *One other thing: I'm not sure I understand what the half-number after the slash is on the revised CRs. You say its a "difficult (possible50/50)" encounter. What does that mean exactly? Is it where the monster isn't fighting to the death, or what? I don't understand why a secondary, half-strength CR is needed.*




Okay, the reason for this was that most people don't understand what a CR is 'specifically'. So with most of my revisions being much higher than the core rules they could easily look at the figure and say "that looks way wrong!"

A CR is set to determine a _moderate_ encounter. Not a tough encounter, but an encounter the PCs *should* win convincingly.

The second figure denotes a difficult encounter. That is one where the PCs have approximately a 50% chance of success (basically its a 50/50 encounter)



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *The DR revision section is a good variant, with "variant" as the operative word.*




Absolutely. As ever, its advocated, but optional.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *The language of that section makes it somewhat nebulous about whether the IH is using the rules presented there as standard throughout, or if it's just offering a possibility.*




Well DR still looks the same either way, but yes I would certainly advocate using it as standard.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *This slightly worries me. You want the book to appeal to the widest possible audience, which means that, in the basic presentation, it shouldn't have to alter things where not necessary (at least to the degree that only "broken" things are altered).*




Exactly, but Damage Reduction is "broken"...



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *DR is, as WotC presents it, black and white, but its still viable. *




No its not, and definately not at epic levels.

Firstly, note that even WotC admits that DR is broken (unfortunately they don't seem to understand why, because they are making the same mistake again in 3.5).

Damage Reduction, in the core rules both promotes the unfair black and white scenario and at the same time actually promotes a munchkin arms race!



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *If the IH opens up using its own revision of DR, people who want to use it normally have to do that much work to "back-convert" DR to the normal system.*




There is no real 'back conversion' (certainly not within my rules since all DRs are given in units of 5/+1).

Frankly, people can still use DR as they see fit, but it IS broken, therefore I can't advocate it! I have given a simple solution, make of that what you will.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *..and if it does that for DR, what else will people using it have to rework to the more familiar ground? Something can be better to use, but it still has to have wide appeal, or it will still fall by the wayside; merit isn't enough.*




If people start using the core Damage Reduction rules for an epic/immortal game then be it on their heads - they were warned.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Anyway, that said, given the amount of work seen here, I can't wait to see the finished product! Keep up the great work!*




Thanks mate! I appreciate the feedback.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Oh, as an afterthought: I noticed along the side of the PDF, it said "Immortals Handbook" in grey, but then in a smaller, black font, it said "Book One: Apotheosis". Now, considering that Appendices come at the end of a book...is this a hint that there will be more than one Immortals Handbook? *




Remember that the Immortals Handbook is being split into four sections when its released as pdfs.

Apotheosis - basics
Grimoire - magic & artifacts
Bestiary - monsters
Chronicle - campaign advice, settings, adventures

Though I already know what will come after the Immortals Handbook.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Mar 31, 2003)

Hello everybody!



> _ Originally posted by Upper Krust _
> *Though I already know what will come after the Immortals Handbook. *




Do share mate!


----------



## kkoie (Mar 31, 2003)

Well I understand you guys points on the bit about Dragons.

As for the font issue, I'm not sure how well you've searched, but there are a number of websites that contain both free and for pay fonts.  Here's one website that has quite an interesting collection. http://www.fontsnthings.com 

In any event, if you can't find a good replacement, then don't replace it.  Just restrict it to things like chapter headings and such, and find another font for general headings.  A friend told me you can buy cds for like $20 that have loads of fonts, but I've not looked for them myself, you might try some of your more popular computer store sites and see if they have anything.


----------



## seasong (Mar 31, 2003)

So here's my abuse of the system. I tried to stay within the design parameters on page 7 of the sample PDF.

Note that the Threatener has improved initiative and a total AC of 32 (base 10, +0 dex, +8 size, +14 natural armor) at CR 5 (a +12 to hit only hits 5% of the time), and some hardness for those situations when that's not enough. The Threatener _should_ get off at least one summoning, at which point the Buggeral shows up.

The Buggeral has the same AC and hardness, but instead of a summoning ability, has very fast flight and a 2 point permanent CON drain as an area-effect _breath weapon_. We can describe it however we like, dehydrating dust works for me, but that's going to be going off every round against a little bastard that's a real pain to hit (and who, if I was running him, would remain well over the opponent's head).

Note that the Buggeral is CR 23 - which makes sense, that's about right for him - but that he can be (and almost certainly will be) summoned by a creature we are expected to believe a 5th level party can face.

I think the summon rules for CR need some work, if players are expected to use these rules when playing immortals.

Threatener (Small Aberration) CR 5 (from 4.94) EL 10
0. Ability Scores: No STR (CR -1), CON +2 (CR +0.2), no other modifiers
1. Character Levels (none)
2. Extra Feats (none)
- Improved Initiative (by HD)
3. HD 4d8/Aberration (+2.2 CR)
4. Integrated Spell Levels (none)
5. Movement: Fine, 5 ft (none)
6. Multiple Attacks (none)
7. Natural Armor: +14 natural armor (+1.4 CR)
8. NPC Levels (none)
9. Size: Fine (-1 CR)
10. Extra Skill Points (none)
11. Special Attacks/Qualities
- Hardness 4 (+0.8 CR)
- Immune: Mind Affecting Effects (+0.5 CR)
- Summon: CR 23, 4/day (+1.84 CR) (max HD = 4)
12. Templates (none)
13. Type/Subtype (none)
14. Wealth (none)

Buggeral (Fine Aberration) CR 23 (from 23.3) EL 18
0. Ability Scores: No STR (CR -1), CON +50 (CR +4), DEX +20 (CR +2), no other modifiers
1. Character Levels (none)
2. Extra Feats (none)
3. HD 4d8/Aberration (+2.2 CR)
4. Integrated Spell Levels (none)
5. Movemment: Fine, Flight 110 ft (Perfect) (+10 CR)
6. Multiple Attacks (none)
7. Natural Armor: +14 natural armor (+1.4 CR)
8. NPC Levels (none)
9. Size: Fine (-1 CR)
10. Extra Skill Points (none)
11. Special Attacks/Qualities
- 2 permanent CON drain, at will breath weapon (+2.4 CR)
- note: breath weapon is a cone 10 ft long, 5 ft wide
- Fast Healing 20 (+2 CR)
- Hardness 4 (+0.8 CR)
- Immune: Mind Affecting Effects (+0.5 CR)
12. Templates (none)
13. Type/Subtype (none)
14. Wealth (none)


----------



## Al (Mar 31, 2003)

Hi there U_K.  I followed the first installation of the Immortals' Handbook and keenly await its release.  

However, I think that some of the CR adjustments are slightly off...

1. Why are clerics and druids considered to be +0.9 CR/level?  If anything, clerics are very powerful for a PC class, and whilst druids are not the munchkin's dream, they are probably better than (PHB) rangers or bards.

2. I like the NPC class adjustments.  They sound almost exactly spot on 

3. SR is a problematic one.  In core rules, they circumvent the problem by general guessing at CR, then pegging SR to that.  The problem is that SR is fixed, and hence has a rapidly declining utility.  An SR 25 is invincible to a 1st level party, challenging for a 12th level character but worthless against a 24th level party.  Yet it gives a flat +1.5 CR across the board.

4. The new EL system looks interesting.  I was on the verge of slamming it then read it again.  The implementation of PEL means that CR and EL are merely abstract measures of power.  However, there could be a lot of confusion.  At first, I thought that the CR/EL table indicated throwing CR 2 (=EL5) creatures as a challenge for a 5th level party, and CR 1000 (=EL40) creatures at a 40th level party.  However, then I realised (I think this is right) that the 5th level party is actually PEL 10 (right?) so the CR2 creature is Very Easy (more likely); whilst the 40th level characters are only EL22, so the CR1000 creature is way past impossible.  I think that's right- please correct me if I'm wrong!  The only problem is that it is very confusing for people who are used to the current system.  Perhaps renaming all the terms would help, so people don't automatically make the associations.  So 'Power Rating', 'Power Level' and 'Party Power Level'?

Other than that, it looks good!  I'm not sure how the alternate CRs pan out, but I will look at them a bit more hopefully.  Keep up the good work.


----------



## Shalewind (Apr 1, 2003)

> 1. Why are clerics and druids considered to be +0.9 CR/level? If anything, clerics are very powerful for a PC class, and whilst druids are not the munchkin's dream, they are probably better than (PHB) rangers or bards.




U_K's already answered this in this thread.



> No. As I rate the classes they all worked out between +0.77/Level and +0.84/Level (rounding to +0.8, without equipment this is of course). But both the Cleric and Druid rated +0.9/Level (meaning they are +1.1/Level with PC equipment.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 1, 2003)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Hello everybody!*




Howdy Dark Wolf mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Do share mate!
> *




You guys are insidious. 

I'll reveal what it is when the IH is released, not before.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 1, 2003)

Hi kkoie mate! 



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *Well I understand you guys points on the bit about Dragons.*




You know it makes sense. 



			
				kkoie said:
			
		

> *As for the font issue, I'm not sure how well you've searched, but there are a number of websites that contain both free and for pay fonts.  Here's one website that has quite an interesting collection. http://www.fontsnthings.com
> 
> In any event, if you can't find a good replacement, then don't replace it.  Just restrict it to things like chapter headings and such, and find another font for general headings.  A friend told me you can buy cds for like $20 that have loads of fonts, but I've not looked for them myself, you might try some of your more popular computer store sites and see if they have anything. *




Thanks for the website mate.

I have looked at thousands of fonts. Specifically I wanted one that complimented the VPC font I am using on the headers, while also being a lot more legible.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 1, 2003)

Hi there seasong! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *So here's my abuse of the system. I tried to stay within the design parameters on page 7 of the sample PDF.
> 
> Note that the Threatener has improved initiative and a total AC of 32 (base 10, +0 dex, +8 size, +14 natural armor) at CR 5 (a +12 to hit only hits 5% of the time), and some hardness for those situations when that's not enough. The Threatener should get off at least one summoning, at which point the Buggeral shows up.
> 
> ...




I see the problem (an oversight rather than a mistake); I could have sworn I changed the summoning parameters to CR. DOH! 

Thanks for the feedback! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Buggeral (Fine Aberration) CR 23 (from 23.3) EL 18
> 0. Ability Scores: No STR (CR -1), CON +50 (CR +4), DEX +20 (CR +2), no other modifiers*




CON +50 would be +5 CR. 

However, I probably should add ability scores to the design parameters.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *1. Character Levels (none)
> 2. Extra Feats (none)
> 3. HD 4d8/Aberration (+2.2 CR)
> 4. Integrated Spell Levels (none)
> 5. Movemment: Fine, Flight 110 ft (Perfect) (+10 CR)*




The 110ft perfect movement for a Fine size creature would be +2 CR (+1 for perfect flight and +1 for 100 ft extra speed).



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *6. Multiple Attacks (none)
> 7. Natural Armor: +14 natural armor (+1.4 CR)
> 8. NPC Levels (none)
> 9. Size: Fine (-1 CR)
> ...




I think that fast healing is in excess of the design parameters. 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *- Hardness 4 (+0.8 CR)
> - Immune: Mind Affecting Effects (+0.5 CR)
> 12. Templates (none)
> 13. Type/Subtype (none)
> 14. Wealth (none) *




The CR for the Buggeral works out at CR 16.3 (16)*

*With Movement corrected.

Thanks again, much appreciated mate.


----------



## seasong (Apr 1, 2003)

Changing the summoning to CR instead of HD was indeed the primary thing I was concerned about .

CON: Oops, thanks.

Movement: Okay, that looked like +1 CR per 10 ft, the way the text is organized.

Fast Healing: I must have missed that in the parameters . In that case I'd drop it, and pump the points into CON some more . It's like free hit dice!

Overall, it looks pretty good. I'll see if I can find any other breaking points or "things that should be in the design parameters" .


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 1, 2003)

Al said:
			
		

> *Hi there U_K.*




Hi there Al! 



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *I followed the first installation of the Immortals' Handbook and keenly await its release.*




Well thanks, I appreciate the interest.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *However, I think that some of the CR adjustments are slightly off...*




Inconceivable! 



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *1. Why are clerics and druids considered to be +0.9 CR/level?  If anything, clerics are very powerful for a PC class, and whilst druids are not the munchkin's dream, they are probably better than (PHB) rangers or bards.*




Okay, well Shalewind reminded people that I had already answered this point (thanks for that Shalewind), though no harm done, an easy mistake to make.

However, it does seem that the 0.9 reference has confused a few people so I will put that on the list of things to tidy up.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *2. I like the NPC class adjustments.  They sound almost exactly spot on *




Thanks. It took a while to get right, but looking on it now it seems so simple. 



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *3. SR is a problematic one.  In core rules, they circumvent the problem by general guessing at CR, then pegging SR to that.  The problem is that SR is fixed, and hence has a rapidly declining utility.  An SR 25 is invincible to a 1st level party, challenging for a 12th level character but worthless against a 24th level party.  Yet it gives a flat +1.5 CR across the board.*




Exactly, but as I mention in the document (page A7 bottom of the first column) the changing relationship between CR and EL mean that powers that become insignificant at higher levels affect EL less and less the higher you ascend.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *4. The new EL system looks interesting.*




Thanks, part inspiration, part luck in coming up with it.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *I was on the verge of slamming it then read it again.*








			
				Al said:
			
		

> *The implementation of PEL means that CR and EL are merely abstract measures of power.*




Well Encounter Level is relative. Challenge Rating equates to +1 CR per +1 character level.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *However, there could be a lot of confusion.  At first, I thought that the CR/EL table indicated throwing CR 2 (=EL5) creatures as a challenge for a 5th level party, and CR 1000 (=EL40) creatures at a 40th level party.*




An easy mistake to make at first glance I suppose...



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *However, then I realised (I think this is right) that the 5th level party is actually PEL 10 (right?)*




Yes (provided there are either 4 or 5 characters in that party).



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *so the CR2 creature is Very Easy (more likely);*




Yes.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *whilst the 40th level characters are only EL22, so the CR1000 creature is way past impossible.*




Absolutely!



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *I think that's right- please correct me if I'm wrong!*




Yes thats right! 

An easy way is simply to determine viable challenges is (as suggested in Table 1-1b Methodology behind Encounter Levels) to simply equate opponents as fractions of the Party Level.

eg. If the Party average 10th-level then we know the upper limit for challenges is going to be x4 (CR 40 in this case). Because multiplying CR by 4 is the same as increasing EL by +8.

Additionally we know that dividing the Party Level by 4 gives us the lower limit. Since dividing by 4 is the same as reducing EL by -8.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *The only problem is that it is very confusing for people who are used to the current system.  Perhaps renaming all the terms would help, so people don't automatically make the associations.  So 'Power Rating', 'Power Level' and 'Party Power Level'?*




Well we discussed all this long ago (when I actually had different terms for the things you mentioned) and found it was even more confusing to people.



			
				Al said:
			
		

> *Other than that, it looks good!  I'm not sure how the alternate CRs pan out, but I will look at them a bit more hopefully.  Keep up the good work. *




Thanks for the support. Give the system a few days to 'sink in'. I agree it could be initially baffling in places especially since people have had two years to absorb the current CR rules and here I am turning their world upside down. But I think the benefits outweigh the short term problems and beyond that its actually a necessity for anyone contemplating epic/immortal levels.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 1, 2003)

Hello again seasong mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Changing the summoning to CR instead of HD was indeed the primary thing I was concerned about .*




Okay then.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *CON: Oops, thanks.*








			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Movement: Okay, that looked like +1 CR per 10 ft, the way the text is organized.*




...theres examples as well. 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Fast Healing: I must have missed that in the parameters . In that case I'd drop it, and pump the points into CON some more . It's like free hit dice!*




That'll need to be addressed. Not sure how long you have been following the Immortals Handbook discussion but it was only a week ago that we decided to remove ability scores as a generic factor, so there could still be a few teething troubles in that area.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Overall, it looks pretty good.*




Thanks. 

In a day or two I will compose a list of all the elements I am going to change based on the feedback in this thread. Most seem like minor details so I am pretty happy the way things have went.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *I'll see if I can find any other breaking points or "things that should be in the design parameters" . *




I think Ability Scores really need to be added to the Design Parameters otherwise people are going to 'go to town' on them


----------



## seasong (Apr 1, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> That'll need to be addressed. Not sure how long you have been following the Immortals Handbook discussion but it was only a week ago that we decided to remove ability scores as a generic factor, so there could still be a few teething troubles in that area.



I hadn't been really. I occasionally poke my head in and read through a few weeks' worth, but there wasn't much for me to comment on that wasn't already being said by you or someone else .

I think I agree about the ability scores not being a "generic factor", incidentally. However, there are specific cases where it really DOES matter - Under the Hit Dice modifier, for example, CON directly impacts hit points, so maybe increase the cost of HD by +0.05 per 2 CON; that's less than the other effects of HD (BAB, saves, feats, skills), but still represents the advantage that simply having loads and loads of hit points provides.

Other than highly specific cases like that, though, I don't imagine that ability scores need anything more than a design parameter mention.







> In a day or two I will compose a list of all the elements I am going to change based on the feedback in this thread. Most seem like minor details so I am pretty happy the way things have went.



I'm pretty happy with what you've shown so far! I'll definitely be looking for when you release it .


----------



## seasong (Apr 1, 2003)

Movement: re-read the section, it makes more sense than I thought. I'm just blind .

Poisons: How to handle DC for the poison?

Core races: The core races seem to average around CR 1, without a hit die. Combined with the advantage of level, that would seem to make any 1st level elf fighter a CR 2 character! Is this your intent?

The Font: It's okay. It's not very attractive or readable, but at least it's only in the headers. However, I'm at a loss as to what "effect" you are trying for with it. If "not very readable" is your target, you've hit it, but I sense that maybe you were trying for something else?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 1, 2003)

Hi seasong mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *I hadn't been really. I occasionally poke my head in and read through a few weeks' worth, but there wasn't much for me to comment on that wasn't already being said by you or someone else .*




Sometimes we can tend to go off on a tangent in that thread but we usually cover all the basics. 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *I think I agree about the ability scores not being a "generic factor", incidentally. However, there are specific cases where it really DOES matter - Under the Hit Dice modifier, for example, CON directly impacts hit points, so maybe increase the cost of HD by +0.05 per 2 CON; that's less than the other effects of HD (BAB, saves, feats, skills), but still represents the advantage that simply having loads and loads of hit points provides.*




We ironed all this out when we removed ability scores from being a generic factor. I think the design parameters should be sufficient.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Other than highly specific cases like that, though, I don't imagine that ability scores need anything more than a design parameter mention. I'm pretty happy with what you've shown so far! I'll definitely be looking for when you release it . *




Thanks.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Movement: re-read the section, it makes more sense than I thought. I'm just blind .*








			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Poisons: How to handle DC for the poison?*




Derived from Hit Dice and Ability Scores.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Core races: The core races seem to average around CR 1, without a hit die. Combined with the advantage of level, that would seem to make any 1st level elf fighter a CR 2 character! Is this your intent?*




Are 1st-level Elf Fighters supposed to have Hit Dice as well (?) I wouldn't have thought so.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *The Font: It's okay. It's not very attractive or readable, but at least it's only in the headers. However, I'm at a loss as to what "effect" you are trying for with it. If "not very readable" is your target, you've hit it, but I sense that maybe you were trying for something else?*




The idea with the font was to have something unique and relevant. The design of VP&Cc has a combination of an upper case and lower case letters. Which was the sort of relationship I want to court with regards mortals and immortals.


----------



## seasong (Apr 1, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Are 1st-level Elf Fighters supposed to have Hit Dice as well (?) I wouldn't have thought so.



Elf:
0.0  no hit dice
0.1  Immunity to magic sleep spells and effects
0.2  +2 racial saving throw bonus against Enchantment spells or effects.
0.1  Low-light vision
0.2  Specialized weapon proficiencies
0.2  Alertness feat
0.1?  Secret Door Detection
= CR +0.9, maybe as low as 0.7 without the weapon proficiencies.

A 1st level elf fighter (weapon proficiencies are redundant) has a total CR of 1.5 naked, 1.6 with NPC wealth, 1.7 with PC wealth.

A 1st level elf sorcerer has a total CR of 1.7 naked, 1.8 with NPC wealth, 1.9 with PC wealth.


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 1, 2003)

Hey Uk.

I see you've recanted on the Rakshasa magic immunity.  CR+4 is MUCH more reasonable =)

My only other point (i'm at school, and don't have all my files and stuff on me) was that harm and in particular mass harm are overpowered.  Mass harm is better (in some ways) than the level 8 benchmark mass damage spell for wizards, Horrid Wilting.  It has less range and lower area of effect, but allows the caster to pick and choose targets, and does the same damage as a maximized horrid wilting (level 11).  It's also will save for half, which is very useful, not many will save damage spells out there.  I forget where in the DMG it has the dice caps for spell damage, but you should perhaps take a gander at them when balancing harm (and heal, it's overpowered too, but hey). 

Anyways, talk later, perhaps when i have resources availiable.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 1, 2003)

Hi all! 

Anubis has just informed me that there is an error in the Spell-like Abilities factor. Apparently I missed a '0' in the multipliers. Essentially just divide the results of SLA by 10 from what they currently suggest (the Solar example is still perfect) until I get the errata sorted.

Hi seasong matey! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Elf:
> 0.0  no hit dice
> 0.1  Immunity to magic sleep spells and effects*




I wouldn't rate this as +0.1...maybe +0.02



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *0.2  +2 racial saving throw bonus against Enchantment spells or effects.*




I wouldn't rate this even +0.1...maybe +0.04



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *0.1  Low-light vision*




Okay.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *0.2  Specialized weapon proficiencies*




Again, practically unrateable...maybe +0.04



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *0.2  Alertness feat*




Granted, although this feat is very weak and needs revision (something we discussed in the IH thread).

However, its a bit churlish of WotC to balance a human character 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *0.1?  Secret Door Detection*




Again, unlikely to carry any significant weight...maybe +0.04



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *= CR +0.9, maybe as low as 0.7 without the weapon proficiencies.
> 
> A 1st level elf fighter (weapon proficiencies are redundant) has a total CR of 1.5 naked, 1.6 with NPC wealth, 1.7 with PC wealth.
> 
> A 1st level elf sorcerer has a total CR of 1.7 naked, 1.8 with NPC wealth, 1.9 with PC wealth. *




I guess its simply how you rate some things.

I see them more akin to +0.44, maybe slightly less since you don't have freedom to choose the feat.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 1, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Hey Uk.*




Hey Eldorian mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I see you've recanted on the Rakshasa magic immunity.  CR+4 is MUCH more reasonable =) *




Well I told you on messenger that I was seemingly caught in two minds with regards Magic Immunity, either the Golem was right or the Rakshasa wrong or vice versa. I just forgot to resolve the situation and choose one over the other before 'going to press' as it were.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *My only other point (i'm at school, and don't have all my files and stuff on me) was that harm and in particular mass harm are overpowered.  Mass harm is better (in some ways) than the level 8 benchmark mass damage spell for wizards, Horrid Wilting.  It has less range and lower area of effect, but allows the caster to pick and choose targets, and does the same damage as a maximized horrid wilting (level 11).  It's also will save for half, which is very useful, not many will save damage spells out there.  I forget where in the DMG it has the dice caps for spell damage, but you should perhaps take a gander at them when balancing harm (and heal, it's overpowered too, but hey).*




I'll have a look at it.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Anyways, talk later, perhaps when i have resources availiable. *




Okay, see you later dude.


----------



## seasong (Apr 1, 2003)

Hi Upper Krust!







			
				seasong said:
			
		

> 0.1  Immunity to magic sleep spells and effects



Based on the cost for immunity to sleep/paralysis/stunning (0.2).







> 0.2  +2 racial saving throw bonus against Enchantment spells or effects.



Should have been 0.1, based on 0.2 for a feat (Iron Will). I can somewhat see 0.05, since Will saves cover a lot of ground... it's just that most of that ground is in the enchantment school.







> 0.2  Specialized weapon proficiencies



Based on a _reduced cost_ for TWO feats (both proficiencies in martial weapons). (Normally 0.4 total).







> I guess its simply how you rate some things.



Well, yes. I was just rating them according to my best guess, based on your system . If I was doing this for real, I'd apply common sense... but common sense can be applied without the system at all. Most of the results I get with your system, I check against my common sense in less time than it took me to use the system - if the system is to be more useful than common sense, it should be more accurate, not less, for the extra time it takes me to use.

Granted, the specific feats or feat-equivalents an elf gets are a joke, but in your system, there's no difference in cost for feats that are good and feats that are a joke .







> I see them more akin to +0.44, maybe slightly less since you don't have freedom to choose the feat.



So my question, once again, is: Did you intend for core races to add to CR? An elf cleric, by that estimate (+0.40), is CR 1.5 or higher. Should elves be treated as ECL +1 creatures if they play a cleric?


----------



## Kerrick (Apr 1, 2003)

I read through this thing, and I like what I see. This thing beats the half-assed CR rating system in that Dragon article (the one on creating monsters) hands-down.   
   That being said, I found a few little mistakes - nothing major, but I thought I should point them out. 
   First: manifestation is an automatic ability for ghosts - they all get it.
   Second: I think the CR value for the pit fiend in the Summoning example is wrong; I did the math four times, and I kept coming up with 2.5 instead of 1. Of course, that section is a little confusing, so I could well be wrong.
   Third: The example CR breakdown for the Barbazu is missing a number - specifically, the CR for Spell-like abilities. It should be 0.05. 

   I think it's rather interesting some of the monsters in the MM break the design parameter rules. For example, the wraith. 11.01 states that ability score drain should be less than/equal to HD ( a creature with 6 HD shouldn't be able to drain more than 3 points on average), and yet we have the wraith (5 HD), which can drain 4 points on average. How do we deal with a monster like that? Adjust it as far as the ability drain, or up the CR?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 1, 2003)

seasong said:
			
		

> *Hi Upper Krust!*




Helo again mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Based on the cost for immunity to sleep/paralysis/stunning (0.2).*




Of the above sleep immunity is easily the weakest (at most one sixth). So perhaps +0.01 was unjustified but no more than +0.03.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Should have been 0.1, based on 0.2 for a feat (Iron Will). I can somewhat see 0.05, since Will saves cover a lot of ground... it's just that most of that ground is in the enchantment school.*




I think you have explained this yourself. 

It should be noted also that we revised the Iron Will feat to give a +3 bonus. So I think the +0.04 is justified.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Based on a reduced cost for TWO feats (both proficiencies in martial weapons). (Normally 0.4 total).*




Those proficiencies are way over rated.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Well, yes. I was just rating them according to my best guess, based on your system .*




As did I.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *If I was doing this for real, I'd apply common sense... but common sense can be applied without the system at all. Most of the results I get with your system, I check against my common sense in less time than it took me to use the system - if the system is to be more useful than common sense, it should be more accurate, not less, for the extra time it takes me to use.*




Well its impossible for me to list and rate every single ability ever created.

I think I have given quite a lot of examples, as you say, that tempered with some common sense should generate the best results.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Granted, the specific feats or feat-equivalents an elf gets are a joke, but in your system, there's no difference in cost for feats that are good and feats that are a joke .*




Well actually I have revised some of the feats (less than ten feats, epic feats, magic items and epic items), in fact I removed those pages from the above document at the last minute for some additional tweaking.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *So my question, once again, is: Did you intend for core races to add to CR? An elf cleric, by that estimate (+0.40), is CR 1.5 or higher. Should elves be treated as ECL +1 creatures if they play a cleric? *




I determined all the core races to add less than +0.5 to CR, so for the sake of brevity (as with ability scores) they were not factored into the equation.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 1, 2003)

Hi there Kerrick! 



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> *I read through this thing, and I like what I see. *




Thanks for the kind words.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> *This thing beats the half-assed CR rating system in that Dragon article (the one on creating monsters) hands-down.*




Well I think they were a bit half hearted about that.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> *That being said, I found a few little mistakes - nothing major, but I thought I should point them out.*




Sure, thanks for the feedback.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> *First: manifestation is an automatic ability for ghosts - they all get it.*




DOH! Dunno how I missed that, thanks.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> *Second: I think the CR value for the pit fiend in the Summoning example is wrong; I did the math four times, and I kept coming up with 2.5 instead of 1. Of course, that section is a little confusing, so I could well be wrong.*




Okay well I should add that Anubis pointed out earlier that the monsters used in the Summon examples have the wrong CRs. My mistake, I forgot to update their CRs from an earlier incarnation.

Anyway, the problem you had was that you didn't factor in the number of times the Pit Fiend can summon a Gelugon (which should be CR 20, as given in the list of revised CRs at the back of the document). Note also the Balor should be CR 26.

So CR 25 would be +2.5 CR if it could be used either At Will or at least 5 times per day. The Pit Fiend can summon the Gelugon twice per day which is therefore 2/5ths.

Though at CR 20 for the Gelugon the Pit Fiends rating should be +0.8 CR.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> *Third: The example CR breakdown for the Barbazu is missing a number - specifically, the CR for Spell-like abilities. It should be 0.05.*




DOH! Thanks again.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> *I think it's rather interesting some of the monsters in the MM break the design parameter rules.*




I actually tried to indirectly show a few obvious MM mistakes in the design parameter examples. 

Integrated Spell Levels example...see Planetar.
Wealth example...see Solar.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> *For example, the wraith. 11.01 states that ability score drain should be less than/equal to HD (a creature with 6 HD shouldn't be able to drain more than 3 points on average), and yet we have the wraith (5 HD), which can drain 4 points on average. How do we deal with a monster like that? Adjust it as far as the ability drain, or up the CR? *




To be honest I would just leave it. 

The design parameters are really there to help, not hinder people.

Of course when they are drammatically broken (as with the Solars Wealth) the CR system cannot be held responsible for mistakes.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 1, 2003)

Greetings Upper_Krust!

That's a decent number of downloads. Word is spreading my friend.

Got some rapid-fire question for you...

1> I assume that "size" is no longer factored into your challenge ratings, or was it overlooked?

2> How would you rate a character with two 0-level apprentice classes at 1st level? Some of those combinations (like the barbarian0/sorcerer0) can painlessly clean up regular 1st level characters.

3> Taking from your Movement and Generic Abilities table, do abilities like Fast Movement (for the barbarian) and darkvision (for dwarves and half-orcs) modify character CR? Or should I assume they are already factored in somewhere?

4> Will low light vision count as +0.1 now?

5> Can your provide CR breakdowns for all the core character races if they are going to be included now?

Thanks a bunch.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 2, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Greetings Upper_Krust!*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *That's a decent number of downloads. Word is spreading my friend.*




I really hope people 'get' what I am trying to say in the document and that they give it a chance to 'sink in'.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Got some rapid-fire question for you...*




Sure fire away.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *1> I assume that "size" is no longer factored into your challenge ratings, or was it overlooked?*




Size is factored. Its Factor #9 on the list.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *2> How would you rate a character with two 0-level apprentice classes at 1st level? Some of those combinations (like the barbarian0/sorcerer0) can painlessly clean up regular 1st level characters.*




Mmmm, haven't went over them to be honest. I'll take a look and get back to you tomorrow (I really should get to bed now).



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *3> Taking from your Movement and Generic Abilities table, do abilities like Fast Movement (for the barbarian) and darkvision (for dwarves and half-orcs) modify character CR? Or should I assume they are already factored in somewhere?*




They are already factored into class features.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *4> Will low light vision count as +0.1 now?*




I see it as being in and around that figure.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *5> Can your provide CR breakdowns for all the core character races if they are going to be included now?*




I wasn't planning on including what are effectively ECL +0 races. Like I said earlier, none of the core races added +0.5 when I went over them. Therefore they are ECL +0, which means adding them is just going to dilute the rules for no reason.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Thanks a bunch. *




Anytime mate.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 2, 2003)

Hi U_K! Just some other things I wanted to mention:

The CR listings here don't seem to take psionic powers into account at all. Now, this is mostly understandable, given integrated spellcaster levels (though you would want to put listings there for other spellcasters, and psions and psychic warriors), and spell-like abilities, but I figured things like psionic combat might deserve a mention also.

In the Type/Subtype CR list, I noticed a few things that were a bit puzzling; the Celestial subtype, for instance, only has a listing for acid and cold immunity; but some celestials only have acid and cold resistance 20. Likewise, not all celestials have protective aura. WotC is ultimately at fault here for making what should be a blanket suite of powers so confusing; whats going on is that they're trying to reintroduce the difference between "greater" and "lesser" celestials in terms of power, but they're butchering it somewhat.

Also, Constructs do not have Int and Con scores of 0, they don't have them at all (so the listing should be "-" and not "0"). Same goes for Incorporeal creatures and Str, Oozes and Int, and Undead and Con (and Int for mindless undead). All of those need to be changed from "0" to "-". Also, Plants do not have Int of 0, since many Plant monsters have Int scores (such as tendriculoses, treants, etc).

I also noticed that several types aren't apparently given their type bonuses on the CR configuration. Why isn't it mentioned that Undead and Constructs are immune to subdual damage, critical hits, poisons, sleep, paralysis, diseases, most Fort-save effects, stunning, mind-influencing effects, ability damage or drain, inherent darkvision, etc? Why don't Constructs & Outsiders have it mentioned that they can't be raised or resurrected if destroyed, etc.? Lots of type abilities don't seem to be calculated there.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 2, 2003)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Hi U_K!*




Hi Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Just some other things I wanted to mention:*




Fire away.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *The CR listings here don't seem to take psionic powers into account at all. Now, this is mostly understandable, given integrated spellcaster levels (though you would want to put listings there for other spellcasters, and psions and psychic warriors), and spell-like abilities, but I figured things like psionic combat might deserve a mention also.*




Well I have the Psionics Handbook but, while I have read it, I haven't really studied it (if you know what I mean).



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *In the Type/Subtype CR list, I noticed a few things that were a bit puzzling; the Celestial subtype, for instance, only has a listing for acid and cold immunity; but some celestials only have acid and cold resistance 20. Likewise, not all celestials have protective aura. WotC is ultimately at fault here for making what should be a blanket suite of powers so confusing; whats going on is that they're trying to reintroduce the difference between "greater" and "lesser" celestials in terms of power, but they're butchering it somewhat.*




Well I thought if I outlined the 'Greater' Celestial Subtype, then people could simply remove elements where appropriate for 'Lesser' Celestials.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Also, Constructs do not have Int and Con scores of 0, they don't have them at all (so the listing should be "-" and not "0"). *




Well under the ability score factor they are refered to as 'Unrated Ability Scores'. However, I see the point you are trying to make (someone else mentioned it elsewhere), so I'll address it in future.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Same goes for Incorporeal creatures and Str, Oozes and Int, and Undead and Con (and Int for mindless undead). All of those need to be changed from "0" to "-". *




Indeed.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Also, Plants do not have Int of 0, since many Plant monsters have Int scores (such as tendriculoses, treants, etc).*




Instead of Int 0 that should read Immune to mind influencing effects.

However, I don't agree that anything with an INT score should automatically be immune to mind affecting effects.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *I also noticed that several types aren't apparently given their type bonuses on the CR configuration. Why isn't it mentioned that Undead and Constructs are immune to subdual damage, critical hits, poisons, sleep, paralysis, diseases, most Fort-save effects, stunning, mind-influencing effects, ability damage or drain,*




Generally because they're covered under Unrated Ability Scores: Constitution 0 and Intelligence 0.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *inherent darkvision, etc?*




Admittedly that is a minor oversight that I seem to have made for a number of subtypes. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Why don't Constructs & Outsiders have it mentioned that they can't be raised or resurrected if destroyed, etc.?*




I don't see this as a factor, there will always be spells to circumnavigate it.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Lots of type abilities don't seem to be calculated there. *




There do seem to be a few I have overlooked (Darkvision for instance).

Also there are a few other factors I should have applied to CON -

Specifically...

Immunity to Critical Hits: +1 CR

However, Constructs should also have...

Does not Naturally Heal: -1 CR

So they will be rated more or less the same  (+2.7, when we apply Darkvision).

Undead will actually be rated slightly better than I have credited them.

Thanks for the feedback Alzrius mate, much appreciated.

This weekend I will update the document with all the errata, so keep that feedback coming. Thanks all!


----------



## seasong (Apr 2, 2003)

Rephrased (and fairly minor) nitpick: Believe it or not, I'm not suggesting that you go through every single feat in the books and assign a CR to them . However, I think that a small comment to the effect of "feats cost 0.2, _except when they don't_" might be warranted. As it is, the text seems to be saying that feats are feats are feats, as far as +0.2 CR is concerned.

Even a "many feats and special abilities have no appreciable impact on CR, and should not be considered anything more than flavor where combat is concerned. For example, Skill Focus: Herbalism and Special Ability: Can Detect Secret Doors Within 5 ft are both inconsequential in terms of the ability of the PCs to handle the monster in a fight."


----------



## Anubis (Apr 2, 2003)

I hear that talk of counting ability scores again . . . Grrr . . . Fact is, generally speaking, the ability scores should not be counted.  This is ESPECIALLY true for PCs.

The problem is that some people are wanting to abuse the system.  THAT is why I advocated counting racial modifiers to ability scores but not standard array ability scores.

If you count the ability scores, the system breaks right at the start (because of low-level character).  If you don't count ability scores at all, some munchkins are gonna try to abuse the system.  What you need to do is set some REASONABLE parameters regarding the ability scores.

To just count them all the time, however, breaks the system utterly and completely, as I have proven time and again with the low-level examples.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 2, 2003)

Better yet, allow me to break the break.  That was an example of how to break the system in order to make a low-rated monster that is nearly impossible.  Now I shall do the opposite and make a low-powered monster that is overrated if you count ability scores.



*Persona Diminutive* 
Medium-Size Magical Beast

Hit Dice: 6d10-18 (hp 15)
Initiative: -3 (-3 Dex)
Speed: 30 ft.
AC: 7 (-3 Dex)
Attacks: 2 claws +3 melee, bite -2 melee
Damage: Claw 1d6-3, bite 1d8-3
Face/Reach: 5 ft. by 5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: Breath weapon, spell-like abilities
Special Qualities: Immunities, blindsight, fire subtype, SR 18
Saves: Fort +2, Ref +2, Will +2
Abilities: Str 5, Dex 5, Con 5, Int 10, Wis 6, Cha 250
Skills: Escape Artist +509, Listen +8, Search +11, Spot +8
Feats: Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Skill Focus (escape artist), Skill Focus (listen), Skill Focus (search), Skill Focus (spot)

Skills: +500 racial bonus to Escape Artist checks.

Feats: Racial bonus feats include Skill Focus (escape artist), Skill Focus (listen), Skill Focus (search), and Skill Focus (spot)

Breath Weapon (Su): Cone of slow, 30 feet, usable at will; works as per the _slow_ spell, Will DC 10 negates.

Spell-Like Abilities: At will---_cure light wounds, cure moderate wounds, cure serious wounds, cure critical wounds, dismissal, heal, greater dispelling, banishment_, and _sequester_.  These abilities are as the spells cast by a 6th-level sorcerer (save DC 130 + spell level).

Immunities: Persona Diminutives are immune to ability score drain/loss, critical hits, disease, electricity, energy drain, mind affecting effects, petrification, poison, polymorphing, sleep/paralysis/stunning, enchantment spells, illusion spells, transmutation spells, and conjuration spells.



Shall we calculate the CR now?  Okay, IF we DO count the ability scores . . .

Ability Scores +281: CR +28.1
Extra Feats x4: CR +0.8
Hit Dice 6 Magical Beast: CR +3.9
Skill Points +500: CR +10
Breath Weapon Cone of Slow At Will: CR +1
Blindsight: CR +0.5
Ability Score Drain/Loss Immunity: CR +0.5
Critical Hit Immunity: CR +1
Disease Immunity: CR +0.2
Electricity Immunity: CR +1
Evergy Drain Immunity: CR +0.5
Mind Affecting Effect Immunity: +0.5
Petrification Immunity: CR +0.2
Poison Immunity: CR +0.5
Polymorphing Immunity: CR +0.2
Sleep/Paralysis/Stunning Immunity: CR +0.2
Enchantment Spell Immunity: CR +1
Illusion Spell Immunity: CR +1
Transmutation Spell Immunity: CR +1
Conjuration Spell Immunity: CR +1

Spell-Like Abilities:
41 Usable At Will spell levels x 6 (level): CR +0.615

Spell Resistance 18: CR +0.8

Total CR= 54.515 = CR 55/EL 23

Ahem.  CR 55?  As tough as a Great Wyrm Bronze Dragon?  I think not.

I think this shows sufficient proof that just because someone can tweak things to force a break does NOT mean that changes are warranted.  As such, factoring in ability scores just because someone CAN break the system would be silly.

Besides, as I said, if you do factor them in, the system breaks all by itself without any tampering.  See again the low-level characters.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 2, 2003)

Hi seasong mate! 

Incidently I have been busy all day (in part painting my grandfathers house for 5 hours), so I haven't had time to get to looking at the Apprentice classes yet Sonofapreacherman mate.

Also if Eldorian is reading I finally realised why my Mass Harm spell seems too powerful. Its because it should be 4 spell levels above Harm, rather than two. Which essentially means that Mass Heal is likewise broken in that respect.

Touch Spell
Ranged Spell = Touch spell level +2
Area/Multiple Targets Spell = Touch spell level +4
Aura Spell = Touch spell level +6
etc.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Rephrased (and fairly minor) nitpick: Believe it or not, I'm not suggesting that you go through every single feat in the books and assign a CR to them . *




They are all 'roughly' +0.2, except the ones in the books that need revision. Like I said there were about 10 PHB feats given the treatment. I had those pages in the document but removed them at the last minute for some additional tweaking.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *However, I think that a small comment to the effect of "feats cost 0.2, except when they don't" might be warranted. As it is, the text seems to be saying that feats are feats are feats, as far as +0.2 CR is concerned.*




Where they don't (relatively speaking) they are either broken or irrelevant.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Even a "many feats and special abilities have no appreciable impact on CR, and should not be considered anything more than flavor where combat is concerned. For example, Skill Focus: Herbalism and Special Ability: Can Detect Secret Doors Within 5 ft are both inconsequential in terms of the ability of the PCs to handle the monster in a fight." *




Nevertheless all power is relative.

Coincidently Thanos says exactly that in the latest Marvel Comics cosmic saga "THE END". Thanos was refering to Zeus and Thor (now the All-Father in the comics after Odins demise) who call a meeting of Supreme Deities when the central bad guy shows up and wastes them all (except Zeus and Thor who _Gate_ away just in time)


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 2, 2003)

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I hear that talk of counting ability scores again . . . Grrr . . .*




Easy Tiger! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Fact is, generally speaking, the ability scores should not be counted.  This is ESPECIALLY true for PCs.
> 
> The problem is that some people are wanting to abuse the system.  THAT is why I advocated counting racial modifiers to ability scores but not standard array ability scores.
> 
> ...




No it doesn't break the system, we already went through all this please don't drag this out again.

The ability scores were removed for brevity more than anything else.

Re: *Persona Diminutive*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ahem. CR 55? As tough as a Great Wyrm Bronze Dragon? I think not.*




With a CHA 250 it would have undoubtedly recruited the Great Wyrm Bronze Dragon to aid it.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 3, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> No it doesn't break the system, we already went through all this please don't drag this out again.
> *




Yes it does.  I've proven it over and over.  A Level 1 character with higher ability scores is NOT the same challenge as a CR 2 or CR 3 monster.  Normal Level 1 characters are ALWAYS CR 1.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> The ability scores were removed for brevity more than anything else.
> *




Hahaha . . . Like I said, it's broken at the lower levels.  You cite how fragile such characters are.  Sorry, but that MUST be considered in a system where such a factor is so important.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Re: Persona Diminutive
> 
> With a CHA 250 it would have undoubtedly recruited the Great Wyrm Bronze Dragon to aid it.
> *




Wow you really like grasping at straws, don't you?  How would he accomplish this?  It's a magical beast, it has no form of communication, and it has no skill or feat that allows it to recruit the dragon to begin with.  There is no way this thing could recruit the dragon.  Besides, what if it can't even find such a dragon?  Seriously . . . You can't base arguments on variable in-game factors such as recruiting.

Look, I've shown time and again why ability scores should not be counted, and no one has yet to show any REAL reason why they should be counted (munchkin game-breakers don't count).  Plus I have always been fine with counting racial ability score modifiers, just not the standard array.  I have proven that such a thing completely fixes all problems both with counting the scores AND not counting the scores, as it leaves PCs at CR 1 while allowing monsters with unusually high scores to be factored into such an equation.

All the proof is with me here and I've shown it time and again.  I don't understand how anyone could possibly deny the facts I have presented over and over.  Ability scores SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Apr 3, 2003)

You DO realize that this creature has a Charisma of 250?  That could convince most greater deities to wash its body with their tongue.  The words of the creature would be law, and it would command the allegiance of all who heard its Word.

And frankly, it's not the ability scores that break it.  It's the dozen or so immunities that are nigh-irrelevant given the fact that it has 15 hitpoints and no DR.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Apr 3, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *All the proof is with me here and I've shown it time and again.  I don't understand how anyone could possibly deny the facts I have presented over and over.  Ability scores SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED. *




Anubis, I'm going to be blatantly rude.

Your arguments really, really, really suck.  They are not proof.  You are consistently vituperative and belligerent, while Upper Krust provides thoughtful, well reasoned arguments.  If you're going to defend this position, fine, that's great.  Do it WELL, not like this.


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 3, 2003)

Anubis, you use a different definition of proof than I do I guess...  Ability scores are OF COURSE pertinent to CR.  As our straight 18s compared to straight 10s level 5 fighter proved.  It may not be that straight 18s equate to 4 levels, but the fact remains that the 18s guy could whump any 2nd level straight 10s guy, so those stats are worth at least 1 CR.

As for your little magic beast.. I believe there should be something in the design suggestions that will make sure that no one modifier should be worth more than half the CR of a creature, except hit dice.  This would eliminate most silly suggestions of monsters with extremely weak feats and worthless stats that artificially push up the CR, like a charisma of 250 on a 6 HD magical beast.

And UK, about the harm spell.  My friendly DMG list of suggestions for creating spells suggest that a level 6, single target divine spell should deal no more than 15 dice of damage.  Since it is a touch spell, we could prehaps upgrade it to 20 dice of damage.  The dice are assumed to be d6s.  150 points of damage is much higher than 20d6, which has average 70.  Maybe harm should be 5 Hp per level, or a d6 per level?  

To make mass harm out of harm using metamagics, you'd have to Reach Spell and then Chain Spell it, which would make it a level 11 spell.  Or you could compare it to a benchmark level 8 wizard spell, such as Horrid Wilting, and reduce it's power slightly to indicate that it's a cleric spell, and make it deal d6s per level to the targets within the radius.  Although, I believe both Mass Harm and Mass Heal are rule breaking spells (and heal and harm for that matter).  Compare them to Healing Circle and Circle of Doom, which deal 1d8+level to creatures in range, and must be centered on the caster, and are level 5 spells.  For just 3 spell levels we all of a sudden deal 200 points of healing/damage?  up from something like 20 points for a 5th level spell?

Heal and Harm just don't fit the mold.  For levels 1-10 a cleric heals xd8+level where x is the spell level, and all of a sudden he heals 110 points at level 11, which, compared to 6d8+11 (average 38) is a huge upgrade.  And heal has a huge list of amazingly useful side effects, like poison, dissease, temp ability damage etc etc.  

Personally, after giving it some thought, I think the fault may lay in both spells, with heal being overpowered, and the cure spells underpowered.  At least part of the reason clerics are so powerful in 3e is to make them more attractive to players that don't want to just heal.  A decent alterative to making them so powerful would be to increase the power of healing spells so they are powerful enough to barely tax the abilities of the cleric.  Perhaps if they did 1d6 per caster level instead... hmm.. 4e i guess =)


anyways, talk to ya latre

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Cheiromancer (Apr 3, 2003)

I don't think Anubis is being rude.  I read it more as enthusiastic.  But it is notoriously hard to tell on a message board- the lack of body language and verbal cues really create a lot of ambiguity.

But, Anabstercorian, I think you are right to call Anubis's attention to how his posts sound.  I would also like to add that using upper caps is likely to make a post sound very belligerent.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 3, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 

See the discord you have caused in the space of two posts. 

I knew we were in for stormy weather as soon as I saw you trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with regards seasongs innocent query that maybe sometimes ability scores should be factored. There simply was no cause for your diatribe. 

While I agree with Cheiromancer that it is your enthusiasm that often gets the better of you, try to be cool, if anything for my sake...I don't want a coronary.



> _Upper_Krust seemingly talking to himself_
> *No it doesn't break the system, we already went through all this please don't drag this out again.*




Did you manage to understand this line or must I translate it into UPPER CASE!? 

We already have *hundreds* of posts on this matter in the other threads. I am sure we have covered everything we are going to say on it. If you want to shroud yourself in that debate I suggest you reread them rather than beginning the whole thing over again.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 3, 2003)

Hi Eldorian mate!



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Anubis, you use a different definition of proof than I do I guess...  Ability scores are OF COURSE pertinent to CR.  As our straight 18s compared to straight 10s level 5 fighter proved.  It may not be that straight 18s equate to 4 levels, but the fact remains that the 18s guy could whump any 2nd level straight 10s guy, so those stats are worth at least 1 CR.*




Lets just shelve the ability scores discussion unless anyone has some startling revelations on the matter.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *As for your little magic beast.. I believe there should be something in the design suggestions that will make sure that no one modifier should be worth more than half the CR of a creature, except hit dice.  This would eliminate most silly suggestions of monsters with extremely weak feats and worthless stats that artificially push up the CR, like a charisma of 250 on a 6 HD magical beast.*




I was thinking along the same lines, I'll see what I can come up with by way of design parameters.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *And UK, about the harm spell.  My friendly DMG list of suggestions for creating spells suggest that a level 6, single target divine spell should deal no more than 15 dice of damage.  Since it is a touch spell, we could prehaps upgrade it to 20 dice of damage.  The dice are assumed to be d6s.  150 points of damage is much higher than 20d6, which has average 70.  Maybe harm should be 5 Hp per level, or a d6 per level? *




I'm thinking it should maybe be a d10 (max 15d10). That way you can still get the 150 by maximising it, or do different things with metamagic.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *To make mass harm out of harm using metamagics, you'd have to Reach Spell and then Chain Spell it, which would make it a level 11 spell.*




Slay Living (Touch)
Finger of Death (Ray)
Wail of the Banshee (Ranged Area)



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Or you could compare it to a benchmark level 8 wizard spell, such as Horrid Wilting, and reduce it's power slightly to indicate that it's a cleric spell, and make it deal d6s per level to the targets within the radius.*




It should be 10th-level, but perhaps we could make a 9th-level version (or possibly 8th-level even?) by reducing the effects.

9th = d8s
8th = d6s
7th = d4s
6th = d3s
5th = 1/Level (a lot like Healing Circle)

So therefore an 8th-level Mass Harm should deal d6s, as should Mass Heal.

What do you think?


----------



## Knight Otu (Apr 3, 2003)

An interesting pdf you have there, my friend! 

The font is interesting, but the small letters are "busy", and not really fitting for the font.

Did you account for the draconic immunities to paralysis and sleep?


----------



## seasong (Apr 3, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I knew we were in for stormy weather as soon as I saw you trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with regards seasongs innocent query that maybe sometimes ability scores should be factored. There simply was no cause for your diatribe.



I certainly didn't mean to instigate one . I was more interested in the summoning break (which changing "HD" to "CR" fixes nicely!).

I've been having fun with this system, and had a few more comments:

1) I know you have examples everywhere, but your writing style is very terse, even in the examples. A little more padding and explanation (even of stupid stuff) would help the slow folks like me grasp it, particularly in terms of remembering where and what the rules are. As it stands, this is not a system I would trust to memory (or even a fast lookup in-game) unless I spent extra time and care memorizing them, instead of just comprehending them.

2) For the HD by type section, is there any chance that you might include at some point a breakdown of the individual costs there? HD encompasses BAB progression, saves, and similar things - it would be nice if there was a quick formula for creating a new Type.

3) I finally got a chance to play with the ECL rules. Do you have any rulings on how inherent spell casting interacts with spell casting classes?


----------



## Knight Otu (Apr 3, 2003)

seasong said:
			
		

> *3) I finally got a chance to play with the ECL rules. Do you have any rulings on how inherent spell casting interacts with spell casting classes? *




If I understand what you mean, the official ruling is, IIRC, that inherent caster levels stack with class caster levels (but everything else is based of actual class levels, such as domain effects, undead turning, familiar abilities etc...). That should be notedd in the "Intermediate" monster section of SavSpe.


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 3, 2003)

> Int 10, Wis 6, Cha 250




Hmmm, if he was Lawful-Evil, he could have been Hitler... I think he would just order his 12 Panzer Batalions and 8 Flak Regiments to attack the Great Wyrm.... could always ask for a little help from the Luftwaffe if things got rough....


Good PDF UK, I can sure as hell use it... I hope your not trying to beat my Vampire on Downloads...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 3, 2003)

Hey Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *An interesting pdf you have there, my friend! *




Well if you think thats interesting just wait until I unleash the IH... 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *The font is interesting, but the small letters are "busy", and not really fitting for the font.*




Soon as I find a suitable replacement the smallest subheading will be changed.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Did you account for the draconic immunities to paralysis and sleep? *




Yes.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 3, 2003)

Hey seasong mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *I certainly didn't mean to instigate one . *




Thats okay, no harm done. Seemingly you can't give Anubis an inch without him taking a mile. 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *I was more interested in the summoning break (which changing "HD" to "CR" fixes nicely!).*




Indeed.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *I've been having fun with this system, and had a few more comments:*




Sure, fire away (glad you are enjoying it).



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *1) I know you have examples everywhere, but your writing style is very terse, even in the examples.*




I am a designer who writes (rather than the other way around). 

In part, the above is also due to trying to keep the page count down.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *A little more padding and explanation (even of stupid stuff) would help the slow folks like me grasp it, particularly in terms of remembering where and what the rules are.*




Anything specific spring to mind?



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *As it stands, this is not a system I would trust to memory (or even a fast lookup in-game) unless I spent extra time and care memorizing them, instead of just comprehending them.*




Well, you don't really need to memorize the CR factors or the Revised CRs. So the only thing you really have to pay attention to is the Encounter Levels. Which, being relative, is pretty simple (I thought anyway!?).



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *2) For the HD by type section, is there any chance that you might include at some point a breakdown of the individual costs there? HD encompasses BAB progression, saves, and similar things - it would be nice if there was a quick formula for creating a new Type.*




I'm sure revealing this will lead to more questions and debate but I suppose I could fit that in (albeit briefly).



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *3) I finally got a chance to play with the ECL rules. Do you have any rulings on how inherent spell casting interacts with spell casting classes? *




I don't have a problem with them stacking but I would put that choice in the lap of the DM.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Apr 3, 2003)

Also, how do you rate the Half-Ogre race in Savage Species, out of curiosity?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 3, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 

Good news I got the Hellsing discs back, if you are at Gencon UK I can give them to you. I think you'll love that show. If you won't be able to make it to Gencon UK I can always post them to you after I get back from London (since I want S'mon to watch them while I'm staying in his house over there).



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Hmmm, if he was Lawful-Evil, he could have been Hitler... I think he would just order his 12 Panzer Batalions and 8 Flak Regiments to attack the Great Wyrm.... could always ask for a little help from the Luftwaffe if things got rough....*








			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Good PDF UK, I can sure as hell use it...*




Glad you liked it mate. Seems people are even finding uses for it that I hadn't really thought of (one of the guys over at dicefreaks is using it to plan his prestige classes).



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I hope your not trying to beat my Vampire on Downloads... *




Wouldn't dream of it. What are you at now? (You had over 100 last time I checked)


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 3, 2003)

Hi Anabstercorian mate! 



			
				Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Also, how do you rate the Half-Ogre race in Savage Species, out of curiosity? *




I had a quick glance, looks like CR/ECL +1.3 (1) unless I am missing something.


----------



## Al (Apr 3, 2003)

Anubis-

I think that your argument is fundamentally flawed because the only pertinent argument I have witnessed (though I have not been following the entire saga) is that be rejigging ability scores to either overpower or underpower the said creature, U_K's system can be broken.

Well, quelle surprise!

Any system can be broken if the _reductio ad absurdum_ approach is taken.  The magic item creation system can be very heavily abused if this approach is taken, as can any 'point-based' system.  Indeed, it is possible to argue (taking your line) that the point-buy ability generation system should not count ability scores. For example, a Fighter who takes Charisma 18, Intelligence 18 and the rest at 8 is clearly inferior to one who buys 16 Strength, 16 Constitution, 12 Dexterity and 10s in the mental abilities.  Yet there is no complaint that the former should reflect a 'lower point' character simply because those ability points (or 'CR points') are spent injudiciously.

Indeed, your line of attack could be used on other aspects of what is (by and large- I have not come to this without raising a few concerns of my own!) a decent CR estimation system.  For example, I could power-build an extremely powerful 10th level wizard, just as I could build an extremely weak 11th level wizard (by, for example, having a mere 9 Int ).  Your logic would state, therefore, since a counter-example had been found to the maxim that 'in general, higher level=more powerful' than using levels as a component of CR is a nonsense.  Do you see?  Nearly any component of CR laid out by U_K in which there is some degree of discretion can be made to look foolish- but only by taking extreme examples, such as the Persona Diminutive.

Moreover, your core argument is very difficult to substantiate.  Given that (hopefully) most DMs have some degree of judgment, a character such as the Personal Diminutive is unlikely to be built.  Rather, if a DM wishes to generate a custom monster, it is clear that a monster with higher ability scores is more powerful than a monster with lower ones.  The irrefutable case is one where every one of the monster's ability scores is higher than its opposite.  Surely, then, the monster's CR should reflect this increased power.

Essentially, Anubis, your fault is taking an extreme example and then back-extrapolating to say that the system is faulty.  Yet anyone can do this to any system.  Any system will break down at some extreme.  Some counter-example can be found if we delve far enough into the realms of absurdity.  The Persona Diminutive does indeed break U_K's CR system.  Yet that does not invalidate it for the mainstream.


----------



## seasong (Apr 3, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I am a designer who writes (rather than the other way around).
> 
> In part, the above is also due to trying to keep the page count down.



Understandable. I tend to be _overly_ wordy, myself .







> Anything specific spring to mind?



Actually, some things might be helped by a table. The list of design guidelines, put into a table, would make it far easier to visually skim for relevant factors. As it is, the eye catches on each one, and has to check the paragraph to make sure it's not relevant before moving on. That's why I missed fast healing, for example.

A table would also help the page count a lot.

Another thing you could do to make things clearer, would be to include the design guideline with each individual item. For example, under 11.10 Fast Healing, you would have a sentence saying "Fast healing should not exceed the creature's HD." Repetition and cross-reference is important in technical writing, which this is .







> Well, you don't really need to memorize the CR factors or the Revised CRs. So the only thing you really have to pay attention to is the Encounter Levels. Which, being relative, is pretty simple (I thought anyway!?).



But I do need to remember (as it is now) that Fast Healing is one of the many items listed in the design guidelines. The problem (as a writer) is that you know the system inside out, and we're trying to read it from the outside in.

I won't have any time to go over it in detail for the next few days (until next week, probably), but I'll do that then and give you a detailed list of areas I found more difficult to read .

Not impossible, mind - everything is very precisely written (except for the cleric CR note), and can be understood - it's just a matter of how easily.







> I'm sure revealing this will lead to more questions and debate but I suppose I could fit that in (albeit briefly).



Well, I don't mean to start a debate on whether it's right or not - the CR modifiers by HD look right to me, I'm just curious how they were constructed.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 4, 2003)

Hey seasong matey! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Understandable. I tend to be overly wordy, myself .*








			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Actually, some things might be helped by a table. The list of design guidelines, put into a table, would make it far easier to visually skim for relevant factors. As it is, the eye catches on each one, and has to check the paragraph to make sure it's not relevant before moving on. That's why I missed fast healing, for example.*




A table would also help the page count a lot.

Sold. 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Another thing you could do to make things clearer, would be to include the design guideline with each individual item. For example, under 11.10 Fast Healing, you would have a sentence saying "Fast healing should not exceed the creature's HD." Repetition and cross-reference is important in technical writing, which this is .But I do need to remember (as it is now) that Fast Healing is one of the many items listed in the design guidelines. The problem (as a writer) is that you know the system inside out, and we're trying to read it from the outside in.*




I don't know about this though. I really want to keep the design parameters seperate. As we saw earlier in this thread some people were asking 'do we change things if they don't meet the parameters'. I think this could confuse more than help



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *I won't have any time to go over it in detail for the next few days (until next week, probably), but I'll do that then and give you a detailed list of areas I found more difficult to read .*




I'll have the revision done by tomorrow I think.

But I'll see you when you get back from whatever it is your going to be doing. Have fun. 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Not impossible, mind - everything is very precisely written (except for the cleric CR note), *




Sorted.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *and can be understood - it's just a matter of how easily. Well, I don't mean to start a debate on whether it's right or not - the CR modifiers by HD look right to me, I'm just curious how they were constructed. *




I'll do that in the morning.


----------



## seasong (Apr 4, 2003)

For the caps+letters effect, I have attached an MS Word document that shows one way to do it that does not involve "illegibility" . It's not very fancy. It certainly isn't using the right fonts (I went with the fonts on my work computer ). And you may look at it and decide that it doesn't suit your purposes .

But I had a few minutes, had the idea, and decided to toss it out there and see if it would work for you. If not, no hard feelings, and I'll see if I can think of something else.


----------



## seasong (Apr 4, 2003)

Now, with it actually attached.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 4, 2003)

Hi seasong mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *For the caps+letters effect, I have attached an MS Word document that shows one way to do it that does not involve "illegibility" . It's not very fancy. It certainly isn't using the right fonts (I went with the fonts on my work computer ). And you may look at it and decide that it doesn't suit your purposes .*




For some reason it wouldn't open on my computer...?

I think this is a problem with my machine rather than with your file, my computer is two and a half years overdue for a reinstall and its slowly but surely grinding to a halt. I'll have to sort that out soon before it self destructs.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *But I had a few minutes, had the idea, and decided to toss it out there and see if it would work for you. If not, no hard feelings, and I'll see if I can think of something else. *




I appreciate the love dude. 

I think people will enjoy what I have done to the errata'ed document. I found a font I am slightly happy with last night


----------



## seasong (Apr 4, 2003)

If you can't get it open (maybe it's the version of MS? let me know what you have and I'll see if I can't make something you can use), what I did was pretty simple:

1) Created a semi-transparent WordArt (outline of the font only, no fill) for a light gray, all caps. Pick your font size and type.

2) Did the same thing, but in lower case, solid black letters.

3) Stretched/skewed the width of both to match, increased the height of the background capital letters by 20% so they tower over the mortal lower case appropriately .

4) Overlayed them. The result is a kind of shadowed text, only with towering capital letters as the shadow

Total process: about 1 minute. The document has 4 fonts, and outlined and filled versions of the background font. The outlined versions look much better (more divinity-like) though. You can do similar stuff in CorelDraw, Photoshop, WordPerfect... . And like I said, it's not necessarily going to fit what you're going for, but I thought I'd throw it out.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 4, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *If you can't get it open (maybe it's the version of MS? let me know what you have and I'll see if I can't make something you can use), what I did was pretty simple:
> 
> 1) Created a semi-transparent WordArt (outline of the font only, no fill) for a light gray, all caps. Pick your font size and type.
> 
> ...




Well I think people will be happy with the revised design of the errata'ed version I'll put up within a day...I hope so at least.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 5, 2003)

Howdy Upper_Krust.

Could you break down a giant bee for me?

So far I get:

+1.5 for 3 HD.
+0.2 for natural armor.
+0.8 for fly (good)
+0.6 for poison (I think; the poison rules seemed unclear).

Using the poison will kill the bee, so that should modify their CR significantly.

Right now, however, a giant bee weighs in at CR 3.1.

That seems severely overrated. The _Monster Manual_ rates them at CR 1/2, and while I know not to take that estimation seriously, the two values still represent a huge disparity.

Thanks.

*Edit:* I forgot to add +0.5 for Immune to mind-influencing effects, bringing the new total for a giant bee up to CR 3.6. Rounding that value up to CR 4 seems even more ridiculous.

Yikes. What now?

*Re-edit:* I just uncovered another bonus of +0.2 for 20 ft. faster than 60 ft Medium-size fly speed, creating a grand total of CR 3.8. Still CR 4, but now a lot more solidly.

Curious, while we're on the subject, do the movement bonuses work in reverse? For example, would a Medium-size creature with a 20 ft non-fly speed suffer a –0.1 CR modifier?


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Apr 5, 2003)

Hi Upper Krust!

I was just looking over (yet again  ) the PDF, and noticed something... It seems that you have removed the Divinity section in it. I still have the last version that has the CRs for Divinity in it.

Where'd it go?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 5, 2003)

Another quick question for you Upper_Crust.

How would you rate the attach and Blood Drain ability of the Stirge? CR +0.2 each?

For the Stirge I have...

+0.55 for Hit Dice.
+0.6 for fly (average)
–0.75 for Tiny size.
–0.1 for slower non-flight speed (assuming penalties work in reverse as movement bonuses)
+0.1 for faster flight speed.
+0.2 for Attach (subject to revision). 
+0.2 for Blood Drain (subject to revision).
+0.2 for non-standard Weapon Finesse feat (beasts do not normally get feats).

This brings the stirge to a CR of 1.0 exactly (so far). Any disagreements with that Upper_Krust?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 5, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Howdy Upper_Krust.*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Could you break down a giant bee for me?
> 
> So far I get:
> 
> ...




The poison would be +1.2.

1d6 Primary (average 4) x 0.2
1d6 Secondary (average 4) x 0.1
Total CR +1.2



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Right now, however, a giant bee weighs in at CR 3.1.
> 
> That seems severely overrated. The Monster Manual rates them at CR 1/2, and while I know not to take that estimation seriously, the two values still represent a huge disparity.
> 
> ...




Well the Bee has No Intelligence - (thats where it becomes immune to mind affecting effects). I really should add the Vermin to the Type category.

Vermin: Int - = CR -0.5

Secondly you haven't factored its suicide...it dies after making one successful attack, which seems pretty drastic. I'm not one hundred percent sure how to rate this (pending some investigation) but I would say it would at least halve the CR.

So Giant Bee:

HD +1.5
NA +0.2
Speed -0.1
Fly +1
Poison +1.2
Vermin -0.5
Suicide 'Halve at least'...?

Total CR +1.7 (2)



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Curious, while we're on the subject, do the movement bonuses work in reverse? For example, would a Medium-size creature with a 20 ft non-fly speed suffer a –0.1 CR modifier? *




I probably would factor it if you are really going for accuracy. Although very rarely would it ever be more than a -0.2 penalty.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 5, 2003)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Hi Upper Krust!*




Hi Dark Wolf mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *I was just looking over (yet again  ) the PDF, and noticed something... It seems that you have removed the Divinity section in it. I still have the last version that has the CRs for Divinity in it.
> 
> Where'd it go? *




It says in the sidebar next to the Templates factor:

They are in Chapter Two: Divinity and Chapter Three: Portfolios.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 5, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Another quick question for you Upper_Crust.
> 
> How would you rate the attach and Blood Drain ability of the Stirge? CR +0.2 each?
> 
> ...




Attach seems fair at +0.2

I would make the Blood Drain +0.6 (Technically it would be +1.2, but they have a limiter of 4 points, hence the reduction).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 5, 2003)

Hi all! 

I'm saving this post position for the errata'ed version of the pdf...

...Edit: Except that I have just noticed you can't edit a post with attachments. 

Go here for Version 2:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46913


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 5, 2003)

Saving this post in anticipation of that revised Challenge Rating PDF.

*Sonofapreacherman watches the adjoining space, pressing refresh every other second.*

*Edit:* Whoever said a watched message board doesn't update?


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 6, 2003)

Hey UK

I just noticed you were online as well, might catch you before you leave. I was wondering, have you finished on all of the Undead Templates yet? I am still itching to get a quick look, you shouldn't be holding out on your fans like that.

I wont, much to my dissappointment, be able of making it to Gencon. Im switching jobs this month and will miss out on two weeks of salary, so the money isn't there for it unfortunately. I really hate not getting to go, since now I actually have good time, since Gencon is in the two weeks im not working. I still havent attended any gamers conventions in my fourteen years of playing D&D... looks like it might end up being fifteen years...  Well, Ill start saving up now for next year. 

Im still itching to see Hellsing as well, was it on tape or digital format U had em? 
So, whens the planned release date on IH, btw? I could really need to take a look at them undead temps..


----------



## Blacksad (Apr 6, 2003)

Hello U_K,

An idea, instead of searching for a shiny new font (which are hard to read). Why not using plain font, and add graphic border or small graphic under titles (instead of underlining) ?

If you want a good exemple of how itnlooks like on PDF or print, Privater Press product use this.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 6, 2003)

Hi all! 

I actually have the errata'ed CR/EL pdf virtually finished but for one minor point, vorpality. But I'll have that sorted later. I should have it ready for you all either late tonight (my time) or early tomorrow morning (again, my time 'natch). 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Hey UK*




Hey Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I just noticed you were online as well, might catch you before you leave. I was wondering, have you finished on all of the Undead Templates yet? I am still itching to get a quick look, you shouldn't be holding out on your fans like that.*




You mean the Undead Templates I have created for the IH rather than the core rulebook Templates outlined in the CR/EL pdf don't you? If so, not I don't have them typed up yet, but I do have all the details ready so its just a matter of typing them up.

If anyones curious there are 62 Monsters in the IH-Bestiary, with another 2 in the IH-Chronicle. 

There are also 3 more lined up for the Psionics-centric web enhancement, but thats going to have to wait until I have the website up.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I wont, much to my dissappointment, be able of making it to Gencon.*








			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Im switching jobs this month and will miss out on two weeks of salary, so the money isn't there for it unfortunately. I really hate not getting to go, since now I actually have good time, since Gencon is in the two weeks im not working. I still havent attended any gamers conventions in my fourteen years of playing D&D... looks like it might end up being fifteen years... *




Ah well, sometimes the best laid plans go astray, I know that from experience.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Well, Ill start saving up now for next year. *




Look forward to seeing you there! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Im still itching to see Hellsing as well,*




After I get back from London you can give me your address if you like and I will post them to you. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *was it on tape or digital format U had em?*




They are on VCD. You shouldn't have any trouble with them.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *So, whens the planned release date on IH, btw? I could really need to take a look at them undead temps.. *




It will be a while before the Bestiary section is available. I'm still dependant on WotC updating the SRD remember.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 6, 2003)

Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Hello U_K,*




Heya Blacksad mate! 



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *An idea, instead of searching for a shiny new font (which are hard to read).*








			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *Why not using plain font, and add graphic border or small graphic under titles (instead of underlining) ?*




I have a new font in place (in the smallest subheading), its a bit boring (IMO) but I am looking forward to hearing what you all think tomorrow when I unveil the errata'ed version - which actually contains three more pages.

The new font is called AGaramond.



			
				Blacksad said:
			
		

> *If you want a good exemple of how itnlooks like on PDF or print, Privater Press product use this. *




I'll see if I can find any previews of their material online, thanks mate.


----------



## Clay_More (Apr 6, 2003)

Well, it bothers me that I cant go. Ill send you my adress by mail as soon as I get one (moving back & forth at the moment, hostel for a few days, then friends place for another few days, then hostel again, the at my parents etc.)

Once you get the stats for the Undead Templates worked up, you off course know who might be best suited for the review 
(Im not saying who, but its someone here with a Necromantic inclination).

I was thinking of doing some work on undead deities, but all the inspiration I can get is welcome. Im not used to working on stuff with a CR above 30


----------



## Anubis (Apr 7, 2003)

Al said:
			
		

> *Anubis-
> 
> I think that your argument is fundamentally flawed because the only pertinent argument I have witnessed (though I have not been following the entire saga) is that be rejigging ability scores to either overpower or underpower the said creature, U_K's system can be broken.
> 
> ...




Actually, what I did is called "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".  My post was a COUNTER to someone else's post, someone who used the rules to make a super-powerful creature that had a low CR/EL.  I merely did the opposite.  That was merely my proof that the ability score thing did NOT break the system.

My PROOF that ability scores should NOT be counted is in characters that are Levels 1-3.  This is, always was, and always will be the absolute proof.  To estimate that a Level 1 character of ANY core race is anything but CR 1 is absurd, yet by counting ability scores, the system has us believe that a Level 1 character could potentially be as powerful as an ogre, which is ludicrous.

Any which way, sorry for bringing that up again, folks, but I had to refute this guy for his lackluster attempt at trying to make ME look like the one using numbers to break the system.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hi all! 

The new pdf (Version 2) is available here:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46913

Let me know what you think.

Thanks.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Well, it bothers me that I cant go.*




Sometimes these things can't be helped, no point worrying about them.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *send you my adress by mail as soon as I get one (moving back & forth at the moment, hostel for a few days, then friends place for another few days, then hostel again, the at my parents etc.)*




Sure, whenever your ready. 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *Once you get the stats for the Undead Templates worked up, you off course know who might be best suited for the review
> (Im not saying who, but its someone here with a Necromantic inclination).*




I can't think who you mean? 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *I was thinking of doing some work on undead deities, but all the inspiration I can get is welcome. Im not used to working on stuff with a CR above 30  *




Well if I can help I'd be happy to...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Actually, what I did is called "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".  My post was a COUNTER to someone else's post, someone who used the rules to make a super-powerful creature that had a low CR/EL.  I merely did the opposite.  That was merely my proof that the ability score thing did NOT break the system.
> 
> My PROOF that ability scores should NOT be counted is in characters that are Levels 1-3.  This is, always was, and always will be the absolute proof.  To estimate that a Level 1 character of ANY core race is anything but CR 1 is absurd, yet by counting ability scores, the system has us believe that a Level 1 character could potentially be as powerful as an ogre, which is ludicrous.
> 
> Any which way, sorry for bringing that up again, folks, but I had to refute this guy for his lackluster attempt at trying to make ME look like the one using numbers to break the system. *




You just wouldn't let it lie would you!?


----------



## seasong (Apr 7, 2003)

I like the new look . I haven't tried building with it, but should the Create Spawn be based on HD or CR? (that is, is the delay in the Create Spawn make it less of a problem than summoning?).


----------



## Anubis (Apr 7, 2003)

First off, lemme begin by saying I STRONGLY suggest rounding ALL numbers DOWN with NO exceptions.  I have run tests, and the numbers come out far more accurate at all levels by rounding down in all cases as per the D&D standard.  If you do not, some of the weaker monsters especially come out horribly overrated, most notably (so far) the Hell Hound (CR 4.8) which comes out at a ridiculous CR 5/EL 10 when rounding normally, but is a slightly less ridiculous CR 4/EL 9 if you round down only.  Another good example is the Medium-Size Skeleton (CR 1.7) that comes out at a preposterous CR 2/EL 5 if rounded normally, but works out to be a slightly better CR 1/EL 1.  Another example of a monster that rounds badly the way UK suggests are the Ghoul (CR 4.6) that rounds normally to CR 5/EL 10, but rounds down to CR 4/EL 9, and although both numbers are pretty bad, the latter is much closer.  Also see the Goblin (CR 0.8) that rounds normally to CR 1/EL 1 but rounds down to CR 0.5/EL 0.5, which is much better; the hobgoblin works out the same way.  Oh, two more examples are the Dretch (CR 4.526) thats rounds to CR 5/EL 10 but rounds down to CR 4/EL 9 and the Lemure (CR 3.75) that rounds to CR 4/EL 9 but rounds down to CR 3/EL 7.

Since rounding up and down at higher levels does not have much of a chance of changing the EL, the low-level numbers are the key to deciding which is more accurate.  As I have shown, rounding down is the ONLY way to get an accurate reading on many low-level monsters.  There are plenty more examples, but I feel that the above examples are sufficient to prove my point to be true.





			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Howdy Upper_Krust.
> 
> Could you break down a giant bee for me?
> 
> ...






Lemme give this a shot . . .

Giant Bee

3 Vermin Hit Dice: CR +1.5
+2 Natural Armor: CR +0.2
Flight (Good): CR +0.8
Movement +20 ft.: CR +0.2
Poison: CR +1.2
Vermin: CR -0.5
Kamikaze Attack: Ad Hoc CR/2

Giant Bee: CR 1.7 --- (CR 2/EL 5 by UK's rounding) CR 1, EL 1 (if done properly)

Heh, there's another good example of why to round down and NOT round up!





			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Another quick question for you Upper_Crust.
> 
> How would you rate the attach and Blood Drain ability of the Stirge? CR +0.2 each?
> 
> ...






Stirge:

1 Beast Hit Die: CR +0.55
Tiny: CR -0.75
Flight (Average): CR +0.6
Movement +10 ft.: CR +0.1
Blood Drain: CR +0.9
1 Extra Feat: CR +0.2

Stirge: CR 1.6 --- (CR 2/EL 5 by UK's rounding) CR 1, EL 1 (if done properly)

I did not count the attach ability because, unlike similar abilities in other creatures, there is little to no benefit from it.  There are as many penalties as there are bonuses and it does not really make the encounter any more difficult, especially since it can easily be killed in one hit, moreso after using this ability.  This, however, further demonstrates the NECESSAITY to round down in ALL cases.  For the blood drain ability, I took the normal base but only added half the normal value of the blood drain points.



In fact, I would be willing to bet there is not a single example anywhere in D&D where the creature is better rated by rounding up properly than it is when rounded down.  Not a single example.  Anyway, that's (based on the information) the ratings for those two and my presentation about rounding down.

Take it or leave it, but understand that rounding up almost always overestimates the enemy badly.


----------



## seasong (Apr 7, 2003)

Hey Upper Krust, this is pretty minor, but...

Under 0. Ability Scores, an unrated CON is listed as +3 CR. On page 7, under 13. Type/Subtype, for the undead type, an unrated CON is listed as a +2.


----------



## seasong (Apr 7, 2003)

Hound Revenant (Large Undead)
The soul of a damned individual, brought back to unlife by holy forces to wreak vengeance upon the forces of evil, the _hound revenant_ is a weapon rarely used. Revenants are generally seen when there is a hell hole that good people need routed out and destroyed.

I started with a wolf, made it Large, changed its type to Undead, and then tied together some abilities to make it a terrifying force of the heavens. Well, in theory, anyway - I think a 13th level party would find it pitiful .

HD: 4d12 (26 hp)
Initiative: +1 (+1 initiative)
Speed: 60 ft
AC: 14 (-1 size, +1 DEX, +4 natural)
Attacks: Bite +6 melee
Damage: 1d8+4 bite
Face/Reach: 5 ft by 10 ft/5 ft
Special Attacks: Trip, Breath Weapon
Special Qualities: Scent, Create Spawn*, Turn Resistance +8, DR 2/-
Saves: Fort +1/-, Ref +2, Will +4
Abilities: STR 18, DEX 13, CON -, INT 10, WIS 10, CHA 10
Skills: 34 (wilderness lore, sense motive, others?)
Feats: 2 (track, spring attack)
*CR 13*

* Whenever the hound revenant kills a person, a new hound revenant spawns from the corpse within 1d4 rounds. This can be prevented by a good-aligned individual blessing the corpse prior to the spawning. Hound revenants all disappear when their goal (as set by whatever heavenly force set them in motion) is accomplished.
	
	



```
[color=skyblue] CR     Item
 0.8    0. STR +8
 0.2    0. DEX +2
 3.0    0. Unrated CON
 0.0    1. No Class Levels
 0.0    2. No Extra Feats
 2.4    3. Hit Dice: 4 intelligent undead
 0.0    4. No Integrated Spell Levels
 0.2    5. Movement +20 ft
 0.0    6. No Multiple Attacks
 0.4    7. Natural Armor +4
 0.0    8. No NPC Class Levels
 1.5    9. Large Size
 0.0    10. No Extra Skill Points
 1.1    11.02. Breath Weapon (4d6 sonic, 40 ft cone, at will)
 1.3    11.03. Create Spawn, 1d4 rounds, Hound Revenant*
 0.4    11.13. Hardness 2/-
 0.4    11.23. Turn resistance +8
 0.0    12. No Templates
-1.0    13. Undead Type (Unrated CON already accounted for)
 0.0    14. No Wealth
 
12.7    TOTAL (CR 13)[/color]
```


----------



## seasong (Apr 7, 2003)

So, there's my experiment in poor design . The CR simply ends up exceeding the HD by too much, meaning that most of the abilities are weak for the CR... there's just an awful lot of them, and the numbers add up.

Hm. Perhaps, on page 8, 3rd paragraph under "Monster Creation", you might indicate that a good monster design should have at least one factor that provides 1/3rd of the total CR .

Still, it's a pretty neat critter, and it would be a holy terror against PCs of 4th level or under... but at about 5th to 8th, it becomes reasonably easy, and at 9th level and up one of these creatures is really a cake walk.

I'd peg the CR at about 6-7.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 7, 2003)

seasong said:
			
		

> *Hound Revenant (Large Undead)
> The soul of a damned individual, brought back to unlife by holy forces to wreak vengeance upon the forces of evil, the hound revenant is a weapon rarely used. Revenants are generally seen when there is a hell hole that good people need routed out and destroyed.
> 
> I started with a wolf, made it Large, changed its type to Undead, and then tied together some abilities to make it a terrifying force of the heavens. Well, in theory, anyway - I think a 13th level party would find it pitiful .
> ...




I think you have miscalculated severely.  I got CR 8.6 when I added everything up.

4 Intelligent Undead Hit Dice: CR +2.4
Large Size: CR +1.5
Movement: CR +0.2
+4 Natural Armor: CR +0.4
Trip Attack: CR +0.2
Breath Weapon: CR +1.1
Scent: CR +0.2
Create Spawn: CR +0.8
+8 Turn Resistance: CR +0.4
2 Hardness/DR: CR +0.4
Intelligent Undead: CR +1

CR 8.6 --- (CR 9/EL 13 by UK's rounding) CR 8/EL 13 (if done properly)

[Note: As I said, the CR differences only actually matter at lower levels.  This still gives SOME proof, though, as even the creator said it looked like CR 6 or CR 7.]

Anyway, there you go!


----------



## seasong (Apr 7, 2003)

The correct CR is 10.9. Changes are denoted in orange.
	
	



```
[color=skyblue]CR     Item
 0.8    0. STR +8
 0.2    0. DEX +2
 3.0    0. Unrated CON
 0.0    1. No Class Levels
 0.0    2. No Extra Feats
 2.4    3. Hit Dice: 4 intelligent undead
 0.0    4. No Integrated Spell Levels
 0.2    5. Movement +20 ft
 0.0    6. No Multiple Attacks
 0.4    7. Natural Armor +4
 0.0    8. No NPC Class Levels
 1.5    9. Large Size
 0.0    10. No Extra Skill Points
 1.1    11.02. Breath Weapon (4d6 sonic, 40 ft cone, at will)
[color=orange] 1.1    11.03. Create Spawn, 1d4 rounds, Hound Revenant*[/color]
[color=orange] 0.4    11.12 Scent, Trip[/color]
 0.4    11.13. Hardness 2/-
 0.4    11.23. Turn resistance +8
 0.0    12. No Templates
-1.0    13. Undead Type (Unrated CON already accounted for)
 0.0    14. No Wealth

10.9    TOTAL (CR 11)[/color]
```
*Note:* I used proper rounding, rather than alternate systems of rounding, as I am testing the fringes of this system, and not alternate systems. I also included ability scores, for the same reasons. Thank you for pointing out (if indirectly) the real misses: including Scent and Trip, and adding the -1.0 instead of subtracting it.







> _Originally posted by Anubis_
> Anyway, there you go!



Indeed.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hey Seasong mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *I like the new look . *




Finally. 

I hope its a lot clearer for everyone?



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *I haven't tried building with it, but should the Create Spawn be based on HD or CR? (that is, is the delay in the Create Spawn make it less of a problem than summoning?). *




Not quite sure I follow what you are saying?

Technically to create spawn you need a victim, whereas you don't with summoning.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *First off, lemme begin by saying I STRONGLY suggest rounding ALL numbers DOWN with NO exceptions.  *SNIP*. *




I think you may have a point with regards rounding down the final number. Of course this is only really a problem at very low CR anyway, but perhaps its worth looking into.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hey seasong matey! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Hey Upper Krust, this is pretty minor, but...
> 
> Under 0. Ability Scores, an unrated CON is listed as +3 CR. On page 7, under 13. Type/Subtype, for the undead type, an unrated CON is listed as a +2. *




DOH! I suppose it was a pipe dream thinking I would catch everything.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

*Hound Revenant*

Hi guys! 

Okay, about the Hound Revenant...

Glad to see you guys sinking your teeth into the system.

Firstly, why did you factor the ability scores?

Othewise I'm getting CR 9.2 (9)

Meaning it should be a moderate challenge for a 9th-level party and a Difficult challenge for a 5th-level party (Or 4th-level if we were to start rounding everything down I suppose).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hi all! 

I just substituted Version 2 with Version 3 in the other thread. 

Apologies to the 17 people who had already downloaded Version 2.


----------



## seasong (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Hound Revenant*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Firstly, why did you factor the ability scores?



Because those are racial modifiers, in (0)? If that's not supposed to be added in, it wasn't very clear in the PDF . I haven't looked at version 3, yet, though.







> Othewise I'm getting CR 9.2 (9)



The ability scores add +1. 10.9, minus 1, yields 9.9. That drops 0.1 off of the summon ability, so 9.8 (10), or (9) if we always round down.


----------



## seasong (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Hound Revenant*



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> Because those are racial modifiers, in (0)? If that's not supposed to be added in, it wasn't very clear in the PDF .



Never mind. I'm just illiterate or something.

Anubis, apologies if I was sharp on that point .


----------



## xanatos (Apr 7, 2003)

Some small notes... I've just finished reading it once...

11.01 What does ['Half' = CR + 2] mean? Is the basic effect All or Nothing (so it has a save) or is it automamatic? (the same for Disease/Energy Drain)

11.09 and 11.14 Demilich Magic Immunity is +8, Golem's one is +2.5. Now... Golem and Demilich are immune to Su abilities (Dragon Breath, Meduse's watch etc.), Rakshasa (+4,5 CR) are not! And Adamantine Golems don't have spells that can affect them! It isn't clear if all these creatures can lower their Magic Immunity/Spell Immunity to receive healing and buff spells.

11.05 and 11.15 Perhaps you should put a note that a +1 to AC is valued 0,15 unless it's Natural! (there are so many names for the AC... Morale... Unnamed...)

Bye
Max


----------



## Anabstercorian (Apr 7, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *My PROOF that ability scores should NOT be counted is in characters that are Levels 1-3.  This is, always was, and always will be the absolute proof.  To estimate that a Level 1 character of ANY core race is anything but CR 1 is absurd, yet by counting ability scores, the system has us believe that a Level 1 character could potentially be as powerful as an ogre, which is ludicrous.
> 
> Any which way, sorry for bringing that up again, folks, but I had to refute this guy for his lackluster attempt at trying to make ME look like the one using numbers to break the system. *




Actually, you have a good point, Anubis, now that you've put it forward in a less vitriolic fashion.  However, I think that this one error of the system can be handwaved away with a footnote.

Although to be honest, I'd say a Ftr1 with 18's in all physical stats could very well be CR 2, so I'm not sure on that either.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Hound Revenant*

Hi seasong mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Because those are racial modifiers, in (0)? If that's not supposed to be added in, it wasn't very clear in the PDF .*




 

Well thats something to clarify for version 4, although I thought the paragraph that starts "Ability scores are generally not factored into a characters or creatures CR..." was adequate. 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *I haven't looked at version 3, yet, though.*




Okay.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *The ability scores add +1. 10.9, minus 1, yields 9.9. That drops 0.1 off of the summon ability, so 9.8 (10), or (9) if we always round down. *




Don't factor ability scores...

 0.0    1. No Class Levels
 0.0    2. No Extra Feats
 2.4    3. Hit Dice: 4 intelligent undead
 0.0    4. No Integrated Spell Levels
 0.2    5. Movement +20 ft
 0.0    6. No Multiple Attacks
 0.4    7. Natural Armor +4
 0.0    8. No NPC Class Levels
 1.5    9. Large Size
 0.0    10. No Extra Skill Points
 1.1    11.02. Breath Weapon (4d6 sonic, 40 ft cone, at will)
 1.3    11.03. Create Spawn, 1d4 rounds, Hound Revenant*
 0.4    11.13. Hardness 2/-
 0.4    11.23. Turn resistance +8
 0.0    12. No Templates
 2.0    13. Undead Type 
 0.0    14. No Wealth

2.4 Hit Dice
0.2 (2.6) +20 movement
0.4 (3) Natural Armour
1.5 (4.5) Large size
1.0 (5.5) Breath Weapon +0.4 (base) +0.2 (14 energy) +0.4 (at will)
1.0 (6.5) Create Spawn
0.4 (6.9) Hardness
0.2 (7.1) Scent
0.2 (7.3) Trip
0.4 (7.7) Turn Resistance
2.0 (9.7) Intelligent Undead

I see the problem now, one of your lists doesn't include scent and trip, hence I was 0.4 out.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 7, 2003)

Sorry to have to do this, but I have no choice.

You have SEVERLY overrated the Undead types.  Mindless Undead are now CR +0.5 and Intelligent Undead are now CR +2!  This is ridiculous!  Don't believe me?  Well take a look!  Under these numbers:

Medium-Size Skeletons: CR 2/EL 5 (OBVIOUSLY WRONG)
Ghoul: CR 5/EL 10 (OBVIOUSLY WRONG)
Ghast: CR 7/EL 12 (OBVIOUSLY WRONG)

See the problem yet?  I'm sorry, but characters of those levels and CRs could likely take on ARMIES of these creatures.  Okay, that's an overstatement.  These creatures still not a challenge to PCs of the levels the CR would indicate.

Back to the drawing board, man!


----------



## seasong (Apr 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Hound Revenant*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Well thats something to clarify for version 4, although I thought the paragraph that starts "Ability scores are generally not factored into a characters or creatures CR..." was adequate.



No, no, it's fine as written. As I mentioned above, I'm apparently illiterate.


----------



## seasong (Apr 7, 2003)

Anubis' reasonable point, restated...

"The undead types look too weak for the rating you've given them. A medium-size skeleton builds to CR 2, which is really off, considering that a party of 1st level characters can make a meal of a sizable group of skeletons. The ghoul (CR 5) and ghast (CR 7) similarly fail to match my DM Sense for CR."


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hi xanatos mate! 



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Some small notes... I've just finished reading it once...*




Sure fire away! 



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *11.01 What does ['Half' = CR + 2] mean? Is the basic effect All or Nothing (so it has a save) or is it automamatic? (the same for Disease/Energy Drain)*




A result of 'Half' means that half the ability score is drained.

Therefore a Touch attack dealing Ability Score Drain 'Half' is +2 CR.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *11.09 and 11.14 Demilich Magic Immunity is +8, Golem's one is +2.5. Now... Golem and Demilich are immune to Su abilities (Dragon Breath, Meduse's watch etc.), Rakshasa (+4,5 CR) are not! And Adamantine Golems don't have spells that can affect them! It isn't clear if all these creatures can lower their Magic Immunity/Spell Immunity to receive healing and buff spells.*




DOH! I forgot to change the Demilich Magic Immunity when I changed the Rakshasas back. 

The Demilich magic immunity should be CR +4.6.

Golems can't lower theirs because they are unthinking.

The whole Magic Immunity question needs addressed.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *where to go with it11.05 and 11.15 Perhaps you should put a note that a +1 to AC is valued 0,15 unless it's Natural! (there are so many names for the AC... Morale... Unnamed...) *




I could add that as a footnote, thanks.


----------



## xanatos (Apr 7, 2003)

> A result of 'Half' means that half the ability score is drained.
> 
> Therefore a Touch attack dealing Ability Score Drain 'Half' is +2 CR.




Brr... It's very powerful... What monsters do it? I want to try them on my players! 

Other small notes...

11.14 You forgot the Disintegrate Immunity... I think that it's quite important.

I hope you are not counting double some items... Golems and Demilich are immune to Spells and Su abilities... The immunity to Petrifaction, Death, Ability and Energy Drain and some other elements are (quite completly) included in these (Ok... Immunity doesn't cover Ex effects... But they are quite rare)

11.13 and 11.04 I think you should add a cap to the Damage Reduction Cost (is it better a 10/+10 (CR +3) or a (10/--) (CR + 2). Hardness is too much better (it is good against Energy and can't be reduced (using the optional rule for DR)).

11.20 Spell Resistance: you should put a cap to it (CR +4.5 is Absolute SR to all spells) OR (perhaps better) make something like: None (CR +0), Low, Medium, High, Very High, Absolute (CR +5) where the SR is based on the CR (something like CR/2 + 11) (so if it's an hard encounter you have 50% of affecting it with spells)

11.22 If Touch Attacks are multiplied for the number of attacks, shouldn't Level Drain/Poison/Disease be multiplied?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 7, 2003)

So if I understand the Vermin type category properly, a giant bee gets a +0.5 CR bonus for being immune to mind-influencing affects, and –0.5 CR penalty for having no Intelligence score.

So the two modifiers effectively cancel each other other out?

_Aside:_ I think rounding down CR fractions in all cases is the way to go. Andy Collins supported the idea, but I see it holding up less and less now. Moreover, rounding down should potentially allow more fractioned CR ratings (like CR 1/2; my rating for a small dog).

Small dog
+0.5 for HD.
+0.2 for Scent.
–0.5 for size.

Hmmm. A total of +0.2. Rounding down to lower than CR 1/4. That's new. What do you guys make of it?


----------



## Anubis (Apr 7, 2003)

Okay, looks like we have a hgue debate on our hands about the ghoul and ghast.  UK tells me they're underrated in the book.  By HIS system, however, they're overrated.  After he fixed the numbers, the ghoul still comes out to CR 4 and the ghast to CR 6.

Now I KNOW they're SLIGHTLY underrated in the book at 1 and 3, but I find this to be overcompensation.  These numbers imply that a ghoul is as tough as an ogre (laughable) and a ghast is TOUGHER than an ogre (also laughable).  UK thinks that everyone would agree to the CR 4 ghoul and CR 6 ghast, but I am here to make my case.

A ghoul has 13 hit points, almost never hits with its deplorable attack bonus, and has very little going for it.  The ogre can EASILY kill it with a single hit.  Does this sound like an equal challenge?  Put both against a Level 4 party.  These numbers suggest that a party at Level 4 would expend 20% of their resources against a SINGLE ghoul.  This is, of course, laughable at best.

I believe the ghoul to be CR 2, CR 3 MAXIMUM.  To demonstrate, I have used ghouls on many occasions.  They are one of my favorite monsters.  I have NEVER seen a Level 2 or above have ANY challenge with a ghoul.  By Level 3, ghouls are practically insignificant altogether.  I have seen my PCs at Level 2 beat a ghast and SIX ghouls, and although that was a tough battle, they did win it barely.  This also shows that a single ghoul is not a challenge for such a party.

As for the ghast, it is slightly better, so I might concede it to be EQUAL to an ogre considering it has the same hit points and some good attacks.  MAYBE CR 5.  Certainly not CR 6 or CR 7, though.

Thoughts, everybody?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Brr... It's very powerful... What monsters do it? I want to try them on my players!  *




None that you know...yet. 

...although the Neh-Thallgu in the ELH has poison that deals 'Half' damage.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Other small notes...*




Sure, fire away.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *11.14 You forgot the Disintegrate Immunity... I think that it's quite important.*




Thanks I'll add that in.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *I hope you are not counting double some items... Golems and Demilich are immune to Spells and Su abilities... The immunity to Petrifaction, Death, Ability and Energy Drain and some other elements are (quite completly) included in these (Ok... Immunity doesn't cover Ex effects... But they are quite rare)*




No I didn't count those double.

But I will be reviewing the Demilich and the varieties of Magic Immunity tonight.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *11.13 and 11.04 I think you should add a cap to the Damage Reduction Cost (is it better a 10/+10 (CR +3) or a (10/--) (CR + 2). Hardness is too much better (it is good against Energy and can't be reduced (using the optional rule for DR)).*




Well you only have a problem with that when you wildly ignore the Design Parameters and Damage Reduction rules I advocate.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *11.20 Spell Resistance: you should put a cap to it (CR +4.5 is Absolute SR to all spells) OR (perhaps better) make something like: None (CR +0), Low, Medium, High, Very High, Absolute (CR +5) where the SR is based on the CR (something like CR/2 + 11) (so if it's an hard encounter you have 50% of affecting it with spells)*




I won't be putting a cap on this, there are occasions when Magic Immunity is actually less powerful than Spell Resistance, but I don't want to have to explain all that now.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *11.22 If Touch Attacks are multiplied for the number of attacks, shouldn't Level Drain/Poison/Disease be multiplied? *




They are....is that not clear?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *So if I understand the Vermin type category properly, a giant bee gets a +0.5 CR bonus for being immune to mind-influencing affects, and –0.5 CR penalty for having no Intelligence score.
> 
> So the two modifiers effectively cancel each other other out?*




Actually Non-Int = -1 (hence the -0.5 total)

However I am changing the Non-Ability scores

They are now:

Str = -2
Dex = -2
Con = +2
Int = -1.5 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Aside: I think rounding down CR fractions in all cases is the way to go. Andy Collins supported the idea, but I see it holding up less and less now. Moreover, rounding down should potentially allow more fractioned CR ratings (like CR 1/2; my rating for a small dog).
> 
> Small dog
> +0.5 for HD.
> ...




I'll review the 'round up or down' debate tonight.

I think it makes sense to round down, and is probably the final peice of the puzzle.

Incidently your small dog appraisal above would make it CR 1/2, remember CR +0.2 rounds down to 0. 0 = CR 1/2. See page 1. 

...of course you forgot its +0.2 for movement and +0.1 for natural armour.


----------



## seasong (Apr 7, 2003)

This is an alt.rakshasa, designed for use as a mortal/humanoid race with magic in their blood, rather than a strange and evil spirit creature from the outer planes. I'm working on a D&D setting, and Upper Krust's system is turning out to be invaluable in that - this rakshasa will eventually be turned into a mid-ECL PC race.

For right now, it's also intended as a measure of just how far the system can be pushed in terms of character power, and to test rounding one direction or the other. I have some comments added to that effect at the end.

*Rakshasa*

Elegant and charismatic, rakshasa are a race of shapeshifting, sentient tigers. Although there is some tendency to viciousness, most tales of their tendency to cruelty are merest prejudices, inspired by primitive fear of efficient predators. Just ask any rakshasa. Socially, they tend to be advisors and performers rather than leaders, and operate with maximum flair and pomp.

Medium Humanoid (Rakshasa)
Hit Dice: 4d8
Movement: 40 ft
AC: +1 natural
Attacks: primary 2 claws, secondary bite
Damage: claw 1d4
Face/Reach: 5 ft by 5 ft/5 ft
Special Abilities:
- Spells
- Detect Thoughts
- Alternate Form
- Scent
- Low-Light Vision
Racial BAB: +2 (progression as wizard)
Racial Saves: Fort +1, Ref +1, Will +3 (ability scores not factored)
Ability Scores: STR +2, DEX +4, CON +2, INT +2, WIS +2, CHA +6

Racial Skills (9 + "7 x INT bonus"): Bluff (CHA), Diplomacy (CHA), Disguise (CHA), Gather Information (CHA), Intimidate (CHA), Listen (WIS), Move Silently (DEX), Perform (CHA), Sense Motive (WIS)

Racial Feats: Spell Focus (Enchantment), Weapon Finesse (Claws)


```
[color=skyblue]CR   Tot    Item
2.2  2.2    Hit Dice: 4d8 humanoid
1.4  3.6    Integrated Spell Levels: sorcerer 4
0.1  3.7    Movement: +10 ft
0.1  3.8    Natural AC +1
0.2  4.0    Scent
0.1  4.1    Low-light vision (x2 distance in dim lighting)
0.02 4.12   Spell-like ability: Alter self at will (caster 4th)
0.04 4.16   Spell-like ability: Detect thoughts, always on (caster 4th)
0.8  4.96   Wealth: PC lvl 4

CR 4 (4.96)
ECL +4[/color]
```

Detect Thoughts (Su): A rakshasa can continuously detect thoughts as the spell cast by an 4th-level sorcerer (save DC 12 + INT bonus). He can suppress or resume this ability as a free action.

Spells: A rakshasa casts spells as a 4th-level sorcerer.

Alter Self (Su): A rakshasa can assume any humanoid form, or revert to his own form, as a standard action. This ability works like the alter self spell cast by a 4th-level sorcerer.

Skills: When using Alter Self, the rakshasa gains an additional +10 circumstance bonus to Disguise checks. If reading an opponent’s mind, his circumstance bonus to Bluff, Disguise and Sense Motive checks increases by a further +4.

*Comments*

Without Upper Krust's system, I would have placed this one somewhere between ECL +4 and +5.

Rak 4/sor 1 .vs. sor 5 = Rakshasa wins by a good margin
Rak 5/sor 1 .vs. sor 6 or ftr 1/sor 5 = non-Rakshasa wins

The question becomes: as a DM, do you care if there are optimal choices in your campaign? If you prefer there not be, go with ECL +5; if you don't mind munchkin characters, the rakshasa works better at ECL +4... and if you allow race levelling (per Savage Species), the sorcerer who ISN'T a rakshasa probably wasn't paying attention.

So, regarding rounding... I think that for core D&D, which doesn't sweat the small stuff so much, rounding down is probably the best solution for this particular race. It would certainly work best that way in the setting I'm building it for!

By the same token, however, at ECL +4, the rakshasa is an out-and-out better sorcerer than any human or elf at equivalent level, and I don't care what level you run that against. A human sor-20 versus a rakshasa sor-16 is not as good. Some DMs are uncomfortable with that, so while you might default to rounding down, a paragraph explaining the reasoning and/or other options for stingier campaigns, would likely not be out of place.

And at 4.96, the system very neatly _nailed_ my thoughts on the creature . Which goes to show that when I'm designing something as a DM, the system works beautifully; it's only when I start looking for break points as a player that it starts to grind (either over or under-estimating CR).


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 7, 2003)

Okay, two questions.

First, why are you penalizing vermin twice? The CR modifier for vermin is already +0.5/HD. I would think that modifier already takes their Intelligence into account. Vermin are vermin. None of them have an Intelligence rating by virtue of being what they are (which, as I said above, is already penalized with a low CR modifier per Hit Dice). To attach vermin with a –1.5 modifer after that just seems excessive.

Second, any new thoughts on the barbarian0/sorcerer0 apprentice-level CR rating at 1st-level? In that particular example, you are almost getting 2 levels for the price of 1 at 1st level.

My first thought is to treat them as whichever 2 non-player character classes best approximate their abilities. In this case, that would be an adept and warrior; meaning a CR of +1.2 (+1.4 with wealth factored in). But rounding their CR down (or up for that matter) still does not make them any more threatening than a single classed 1st level character.

What say you folks?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 7, 2003)

Forgot these questions as well. Will "Blood Drain" be added to your list of Generic Abilities? Does Attach really deserve a CR rating on that list?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

HI seasong mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *This is an alt.rakshasa, designed for use as a mortal/humanoid race with magic in their blood, rather than a strange and evil spirit creature from the outer planes. I'm working on a D&D setting, and Upper Krust's system is turning out to be invaluable in that - this rakshasa will eventually be turned into a mid-ECL PC race.*




Appreciate the love dude. 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *For right now, it's also intended as a measure of just how far the system can be pushed in terms of character power, and to test rounding one direction or the other. I have some comments added to that effect at the end.
> 
> Rakshasa
> 
> ...




It might be prudent to include ability score bonuses in the make up of any ECL.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Without Upper Krust's system, I would have placed this one somewhere between ECL +4 and +5.
> 
> Rak 4/sor 1 .vs. sor 5 = Rakshasa wins by a good margin
> Rak 5/sor 1 .vs. sor 6 or ftr 1/sor 5 = non-Rakshasa wins
> ...




Well if we were to add your above ability scores to the ECL then round down we would be left with ECL 5.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 7, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Okay, two questions.
> 
> First, why are you penalizing vermin twice? The CR modifier for vermin is already +0.5/HD. I would think that modifier already takes their Intelligence into account. Vermin are vermin. None of them have an Intelligence rating by virtue of being what they are (which, as I said above, is already penalized with a low CR modifier per Hit Dice). To attach vermin with a –1.5 modifer after that just seems excessive.
> *




Vermin are not penalized twice.  The Type modifier already includes that stuff.  Do not add it twice.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Second, any new thoughts on the barbarian0/sorcerer0 apprentice-level CR rating at 1st-level? In that particular example, you are almost getting 2 levels for the price of 1 at 1st level.
> 
> My first thought is to treat them as whichever 2 non-player character classes best approximate their abilities. In this case, that would be an adept and warrior; meaning a CR of +1.2 (+1.4 with wealth factored in). But rounding their CR down (or up for that matter) still does not make them any more threatening than a single classed 1st level character.
> 
> What say you folks? *




I don't see why ANY calculation is needed.  They are Level 1 characters.  A character with two apprentice classes is still character level 1.  Treat them as such, making them CR 1 as normal.  For those with two apprentice NPC classes, just take the highest value involved (a Warrior/Expert would be CR +0.6), *or* the average of the two (a Commoner/Warrior would be CR +0.5).  This whole issue is, I think, a bit pedantic.  Why?  An apprentice multiclass is the same as a normal Level 1 character, half and half.  The CR does not change.  Besides, by level 2, the issue disappears altogether.  Anyway, that should take care of that.  I'm not even sure why this is an issue to begin with, to be honest, because the system kinda takes care of this matter all by itself.

Now let's get back to the subject of the ghouls and ghasts, seeing as this is the only real remaining problem that I can see in the system (at the moment).


----------



## Anubis (Apr 7, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Forgot these questions as well. Will "Blood Drain" be added to your list of Generic Abilities? Does Attach really deserve a CR rating on that list? *




I kinda already answered this pretty well I believe.  Not sure if UK would agree, but a cursory glance should answer this well enough.  First off, blood drain is ability damage, nothing more, so there is no need to count it seperately.  Maybe a parameter but that's all.  Anyway, as for the rest, here's what I had to say on the matter, and I quote:

"Stirge:

1 Beast Hit Die: CR +0.55
Tiny: CR -0.75
Flight (Average): CR +0.6
Movement +10 ft.: CR +0.1
Blood Drain: CR +0.9
1 Extra Feat: CR +0.2

Stirge: CR 1.6 --- (CR 2/EL 5 by UK's rounding) CR 1, EL 1 (if done properly)

I did not count the attach ability because, unlike similar abilities in other creatures, there is little to no benefit from it. There are as many penalties as there are bonuses and it does not really make the encounter any more difficult, especially since it can easily be killed in one hit, moreso after using this ability. This, however, further demonstrates the NECESSAITY to round down in ALL cases. For the blood drain ability, I took the normal base but only added half the normal value of the blood drain points."


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Okay, two questions.*




Sure, fire away.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *First, why are you penalizing vermin twice? The CR modifier for vermin is already +0.5/HD.*




Thats down to elements like hp; BAB; saves; feats and skills. 

Non Intelligence is something completely different.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I would think that modifier already takes their Intelligence into account.*




No.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Vermin are vermin. *




No. The vermins hp, BAB and saves are vermin. Non Intelligence is like a template.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *None of them have an Intelligence rating by virtue of being what they are (which, as I said above, is already penalized with a low CR modifier per Hit Dice). To attach vermin with a –1.5 modifer after that just seems excessive.*




They are mindless though, and thus wholly predictable.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Second, any new thoughts on the barbarian0/sorcerer0 apprentice-level CR rating at 1st-level? In that particular example, you are almost getting 2 levels for the price of 1 at 1st level.
> 
> My first thought is to treat them as whichever 2 non-player character classes best approximate their abilities. In this case, that would be an adept and warrior; meaning a CR of +1.2 (+1.4 with wealth factored in). But rounding their CR down (or up for that matter) still does not make them any more threatening than a single classed 1st level character.
> 
> What say you folks? *




Is there some sort of problem with just making it CR 1?


----------



## seasong (Apr 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> It might be prudent to include ability score bonuses in the make up of any ECL.



Oh yeah, I forgot to de-apply my house rule* when I rewrote it for this . Without the house rule, he's _definitely_ ECL +5.

* Ability score bonuses affect the min/max/avg, but don't affect the point buy costs of ability scores; thus, a rakshasa could buy a 24 CHA, but buying an 18 would not give him a 24. The point buy system I'm using is a 1:1 ratio, with 74 points.


> Well if we were to add your above ability scores to the ECL then round down we would be left with ECL 5.



Alter all of the ability scores to +0. Now pretend I just said everything I said about the rakshasa, again . I think the 4.96 version (with +0 in all ability scores) is still a questionable zone, depending on the DM's goal.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 7, 2003)

Match any single class 1st-level character against a 1st-level barbarian0/sorcerer0 and the barbarian0/sorcerer0 will clean up with Hit Points to spare. The current incarnation of the CR system does not take that into account.

As for Vermin, you missed the point. What I'm saying is ... why are vermin being penalized at all (with a type modifier accounting for a non-exisitant Intelligence score) when their Hit Dice modifier already accounts for what they are. Meaning, all vermin (without exception) have an Intelligence of "—". That feature of their "type" is presumably already factored into giving them a Hit Dice modifier of +0.5/HD.

*Edit:* This second point (regarding vermin) was just cleared up by Upper_Krust.

Posting fast and furious as usual...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *I kinda already answered this pretty well I believe.  Not sure if UK would agree, but a cursory glance should answer this well enough.  First off, blood drain is ability damage, nothing more, so there is no need to count it seperately.  Maybe a parameter but that's all.  Anyway, as for the rest, here's what I had to say on the matter, and I quote:
> 
> "Stirge:
> 
> ...




Blood drain is technically +1.2, however I would limit it to +0.8 because it becomes sated after draining four points. Four points (total) would be 0.2 x 4, hence +0.8.


----------



## seasong (Apr 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Appreciate the love dude.



Then get cracking on publishing this!  Seriously, I'm a guaranteed sale at this point, just so I'll have a "legal" copy of the appendix.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 7, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Match any single class 1st-level character against a 1st-level barbarian0/sorcerer0 and the barbarian0/sorcerer0 will clean up with Hit Points to spare. The current incarnation of the CR system does not take that into account.*




I think the problem is with the Apprentice sorceror. Its unbalanced.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *As for Vermin, you missed the point. What I'm saying is ... why are vermin being penalized at all (with a type modifier accounting for a non-exisitant Intelligence score) when their Hit Dice modifier already accounts for what they are. Meaning, all vermin (without exception) have an Intelligence of "—". That feature of their "type" is presumably already factored into giving them a Hit Dice modifier of +0.5/HD.
> 
> Edit: This second point (regarding vermin) was just cleared up by Upper_Krust.
> 
> ...


----------



## Anabstercorian (Apr 7, 2003)

Anubis, please stop shouting.  If you must shout, at least spell your words properly.  Etiquette.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 7, 2003)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> *Anubis, please stop shouting.  If you must shout, at least spell your words properly.  Etiquette. *




Um, I'm NOT shouting.  What the heck are you talking about?


----------



## Al (Apr 7, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually, what I did is called "demonstrating absurdity by being absurd".  My post was a COUNTER to someone else's post, someone who used the rules to make a super-powerful creature that had a low CR/EL.  I merely did the opposite.  That was merely my proof that the ability score thing did NOT break the system.
> 
> ...




Fair point.  I have not been following this (evidently long-running) saga between yourself, U_K, Seasong and Anab.  From the responses of the others mentioned, it seems to be too intractable for me to disentangle.

However, I can attack your PROOF.  Ignoring the fact that, on balance, a straight-18 powerful first level character can indeed match an ogre in terms of relative power (if not in a stand-up fight), your PROOF is lacking in that it is a non sequitur.  

Your assertion that one cannot estimate a level one character as anything other than a CR1 misses the point.  CR is a measure of power.  Higher ability scores generally means a greater measure of power.  If anything, I would argue that ability scores should be used to estimate PC levels as much as monsters.  Of course, this will not always be representative, as your counter-example (and the original poster's example illustrate) but the trend is upwards.

Where is the weak link in this chain of logic?
CR is a measure of power (true)
Higher ability scores generally indicate more power (true)
Therefore, higher ability scores should be reflected in a higher CR.

Oh, and don't use capital letters.  I'm ambivalent, but some posters can get upset.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 8, 2003)

All right. Check this scenario out.

A party of four typical 1st level characters encounter two 2nd level "fighter class" hobgoblins.

The characters are each CR 1 and therefore PEL 1.

The CR for one of those hobgoblins is 2 and therefore EL 5. Because there are two of them it becomes EL 7.

The party arcane spellcaster casts _sleep_ and rolls the average amount of Hit Dice. Both hobgoblins fail their Will saves and go down for 1 minute. The party kills them in their sleep.

Their reward: 2400 XP.

What the heck? 600 XP each for that? Or worse yet ... 2400 XP for a solitary arcane spellcaster (which is also conceivable using the current system). Something is not right here. Even if the spell failed and the party got involved in melee with the two hobgoblins, 600 XP each seems way too much for such a simple encounter.

A think a change is needed. This is what I suggest. Rather than "averaging" party level, what about calculating PEL the same way EL is calculated for monsters.

Meaning a party of four typical 1st level characters (CR 1 individually) would become PEL 5 (EL +4 for 4 opponents/party members).

Suddenly the above hobgoblin encounter falls to 600 XP or 150 XP each. Infinitely more reasonable (although it still does not solve the solitary arcane spellcaster imbalance who gets 2400 XP all at once).

Any thoughts?


----------



## xanatos (Apr 8, 2003)

> > 11.22 If Touch Attacks are multiplied for the number of attacks, shouldn't Level Drain/Poison/Disease be multiplied?
> 
> 
> 
> They are....is that not clear?



If with "clear" you mean "there is a single example in the text" then yes, it's clear!  I wasn't able to find the general rule! Perhaps you could add rules for Beholder and other monsters that "Multicast" (and perhaps even rules for monsters that can "multibreath")

On the Magic Immunity... I think it should be connected to the HD of the creature (so a variable adder, +0.x for each HD)... Why? Because if you take the Standard Party (Fighter, Thief, Cleric and Wizard/Sorcerere) a Magical Immune creature will take away probably less than 1/3 of the power of the Cleric and perhaps 2/3 of the power of the Wizard (he can still Buff, but he can't directly attach), so a total of less than 1 player... So you will have a party of 3 PC instead of 4... An example... Take a Goblin with Magic Immunity... And this is true at least till level 20 (Special Abilities of Magical Weapons probably become much more common and powerful after this level, so they must be factored)... A Goblin with Magical Immunity is still a Goblin! Ok... It's a little more powerful, but not too much... How much will his CR raise? Probably he will be a CR 1 creature (and about the fact that you shouldn't give Magic Immunity to Goblins... Think about Weave Elementals... Small Weave Elemental (with 2HD) (the Weave is the magical energy of FR and is diffused everywhere (but you surely know) They could be immune to magic (they are made of magic!)).

Other small things...

11.23 Turn Resistance should be capped at CR +1 (the cost of "Can Be Turned")

11.25 Perhaps you could add Drow to the Light Sensitivity (they are quite common enemies... Perhaps because this was the Year of the Drow in FR)

Magical Items
Natural Armor: Perhaps it should be a little more expensive than Standard Enchantment... Ok... It isn't good against Touch Attacks, but it stacks with Standard Armor and Shield, and it's invisible (so no one will know that you are "protected"). Perhaps 1500?

Bye


----------



## Anubis (Apr 8, 2003)

Al said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Fair point.  I have not been following this (evidently long-running) saga between yourself, U_K, Seasong and Anab.  From the responses of the others mentioned, it seems to be too intractable for me to disentangle.
> 
> ...




If you had been following this discussion, you would see that I already successfully dismissed your "logic" long ago.  Seeing as I have other things to take care of (the ghouls and ghasts), I'll let you go back and read the thousand some odd posts that generate this discussion rather than getting into this yet again.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 8, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *All right. Check this scenario out.
> 
> A party of four typical 1st level characters encounter two 2nd level "fighter class" hobgoblins.
> 
> ...




A hobgoblin with 1 level of fighter is CR 1, not CR 2.

Heh, I warned UK about this, but I guess now he'll listen to meabout this problem.

You see, hobgoblins do NOT have Humanoid Hit Dice.  In the book, they have 1 level of warrior.  Their CR is thus 0.8, rounding of course to 0 (meaning CR 1/2).  The actual CR of the hobgoblin itself, as a race, is 0.2, meaning it is an ECL 0 race.  As such, a hobgoblin with 1 fighter level is CR 1.2, rounded to CR 1.  Two hobgoblins would then be EL 3.

Anyway, the same goes for goblins and orcs as well.  Goblins are actually CR 0.2, and orcs are CR 0, once you take away their one level of warrior.

Anyway, UK, perhaps you should address this soon.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 8, 2003)

Anubis.

You seem to have a flare for misinterpreting every post I make. I know hobgoblins advance as character class. Hence my example with _two 2nd level "fighter class" hobgoblins_. It's right there in your quote. All you have to do is read it. Thus, two 2nd level "fighter class" hobgoblins with NPC wealth are 1.8 each. Add in Darkvision, and you get CR 2, not CR 1.

Please read my examples more carefully in the future.


----------



## seasong (Apr 8, 2003)

Al said:
			
		

> Fair point.  I have not been following this (evidently long-running) saga between yourself, U_K, Seasong and Anab.  From the responses of the others mentioned, it seems to be too intractable for me to disentangle.



Hey now, I wasn't in that . I just kind of accidentally stuck my foot in it, sort of like my mouth .


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 8, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *All right. Check this scenario out.
> 
> A party of four typical 1st level characters encounter two 2nd level "fighter class" hobgoblins.
> 
> ...




The current rules do seem to inflate CR slightly too much at low levels, especially 1st-level.

Not sure as to your solution, that might backfire at higher levels.

I'll have a think about it, I am sure there is a simple solution.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 8, 2003)

Hi xanatos mate! 



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *They are....is that not clear?*



*
If with "clear" you mean "there is a single example in the text" then yes, it's clear!  I wasn't able to find the general rule!*[/QUOTE] 

I have already addressed this problem. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Perhaps you could add rules for Beholder and other monsters that "Multicast" (and perhaps even rules for monsters that can "multibreath")*




The Beholder is no longer OGL hence the reason I have the Yrthak as the Ray example.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *On the Magic Immunity... I think it should be connected to the HD of the creature (so a variable adder, +0.x for each HD)... Why? Because if you take the Standard Party (Fighter, Thief, Cleric and Wizard/Sorcerere) a Magical Immune creature will take away probably less than 1/3 of the power of the Cleric and perhaps 2/3 of the power of the Wizard (he can still Buff, but he can't directly attach), so a total of less than 1 player... So you will have a party of 3 PC instead of 4... An example... Take a Goblin with Magic Immunity... And this is true at least till level 20 (Special Abilities of Magical Weapons probably become much more common and powerful after this level, so they must be factored)... A Goblin with Magical Immunity is still a Goblin! Ok... It's a little more powerful, but not too much... How much will his CR raise? Probably he will be a CR 1 creature (and about the fact that you shouldn't give Magic Immunity to Goblins... Think about Weave Elementals... Small Weave Elemental (with 2HD) (the Weave is the magical energy of FR and is diffused everywhere (but you surely know) They could be immune to magic (they are made of magic!)).*




I haven't 100% settled on how I will change Magic Immunity but I am wary with Balancing it to Hit Dice. I think it provides a set rate but remember the design parameters suggest that no creature have a single ability valued at more than half its total CR.

Probably +0.5/Spell level-immunity.
+5 Magic Immunity: spells and SU abilities (set; as with Golem)
+10 Magic Immunity: spells and SU abilities (own spells still work on you, as Demilich*) 

*Although the demilich is still vulnerable to a few spells so its CR modifier is slightly lower.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Other small things...
> 
> 11.23 Turn Resistance should be capped at CR +1 (the cost of "Can't Be Turned")*




Indeed.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *11.25 Perhaps you could add Drow to the Light Sensitivity (they are quite common enemies... Perhaps because this was the Year of the Drow in FR) *




Not sure I follow you here mate? 



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Magical Items
> Natural Armor: Perhaps it should be a little more expensive than Standard Enchantment... Ok... It isn't good against Touch Attacks, but it stacks with Standard Armor and Shield, and it's invisible (so no one will know that you are "protected"). Perhaps 1500? *




I am happy with this at 1000, same as armour. They may stack but then so does the Natural Armour and Armour worn by a monster.

Thanks for the feedback mate, much appreciated.


----------



## seasong (Apr 8, 2003)

Part of the problem is treating NPCs as monsters, instead of as a rival group. If a party of 4 level 1 PCs encountered an enemy party of 4 level 1 PCs, would the enemy be EL 5, while the party was PEL 1? That kind of forces a mental disconnect for me.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 8, 2003)

Hi seasong mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Part of the problem is treating NPCs as monsters, instead of as a rival group. If a party of 4 level 1 PCs encountered an enemy party of 4 level 1 PCs, would the enemy be EL 5, while the party was PEL 1? That kind of forces a mental disconnect for me. *




This is all core rulebook stuff you are addressing here.

I simply tidied it up and gave it a name: PEL.

However, I think something may have just clicked in the back of my mind, Sonofapreachermans solution may be viable...I'll get back to you all later.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 8, 2003)

Upper_Krust,

Got a question for ya'. With DR being +0.25 for every 5 points of damage reduced, and +0.25 per enhancement bonus required to bypass it, what kind of modifier would you assign to barbarian-type DR? +1, +2? Maybe higher?

Damn fine work, by the way.

EDIT: Nevermind. I found it (hardness).


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 8, 2003)

Another question. With Energy (insert type here) Resistance 10 being CR +1 (+0.1 / 10 points of energy), and outright immunity to a single energy type being CR +1, do you effectively consider any kind of energy resistance above 10 to be immunity? That doesn't leave much breathing room, does it?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 8, 2003)

Hello kreynolds.

I believe that barbarian-like damage reduction would fall under the auspices of Hardness (+0.2 CR per point).

Upper_Krust will correct me if I'm wrong. Still, it does need to be stated clearly somewhere.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 8, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> The current rules do seem to inflate CR slightly too much at low levels, especially 1st-level.
> 
> Not sure as to your solution, that might backfire at higher levels.
> 
> I'll have a think about it, I am sure there is a simple solution.



Here's another thought. I'm looking at *Appendix Table 1–1A* and what jumps out right away is the way the EL values jump so drastically. Perhaps the problem can be solved there as well. Was there any rhyme or reason to those values? I'm sure they're are, but I can't find the pattern.

It jumps 4 points, then 2 points, then 2 points, then advances 1 point at a time.

What if it jumped up by two points instead? Like this...

*CR - EL*
1 -- 1
2 -- 3
3 -- 5
4 -- 7
5 -- 8
6 -- 9
7 -- 10
etc. etc.

*Edit:* Using the 1st-level party of four and the two 2nd level fighter hobgoblins again, the encounter can only net 1200 XP for the characters; 300 XP each. That cuts the XP reward in half. Especially for the solitary arcane spellcaster.

Now if you use my suggestion (of calculating PEL as EL) then it becomes a PEL 5 versus EL 5 encounter (worth 300 XP; 75 XP each).

As always ... tell me what you think. So far I think one or both solutions can potentially work.


----------



## seasong (Apr 8, 2003)

Another possibility, just to throw this out there, is that the disproportionate ELs at 1st and 2nd level are a good thing, because it reduces the "real challenge" at the lowest, character-building levels.


----------



## Knight Otu (Apr 8, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Another question. With Energy (insert type here) Resistance 10 being CR +1 (+0.1 / 10 points of energy), ... *




I think you mean resistance 100. 

Interestingly, I somewhat used that idea in my planar rulers template...

Now if only could get version 3 downloaded...


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 8, 2003)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I think you mean resistance 100.  *




Oh...yeah...crap.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 8, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Here's another thought. I'm looking at Appendix Table 1–1A and what jumps out right away is the way the EL values jump so drastically. Perhaps the problem can be solved there as well. Was there any rhyme or reason to those values? I'm sure they're are, but I can't find the pattern.
> 
> It jumps 4 points, then 2 points, then 2 points, then advances 1 point at a time.
> 
> ...




AHHHHHHH!  DON'T ASK!!  IT TOOK HIM THREE HOURS TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME!!!

(By the way, THAT is shouting, hahaha!)

Seriously, though, I am very mathematically minded, and the theory as a whole made my head spin until I crunched the numbers all the way up to Level 1,000,000.  Let's just say it's pretty damn complicated and makes no sense unless you actually put yourself in the mind of UK.  I didn't like it at first, either, and brought up the same points.  I shut up about it after he smashed me with the formula and hammered it into my head.

Here it is in a nutshell:

Level*2 ~= XP*4
Level = CR
XP*4 = EL+4

Thus:

CR*2 ~= EL+4

I never thought it would work myself, but if you calculate up high enough, you will find that doubling level NEVER needs more than four times the XP, and since you get four times the XP from EL+4, that equates with CR*2.

Like I said, it's complicated, but trust me, IT WORKS.  I was amazed, but it works!


----------



## Anubis (Apr 8, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Anubis.
> 
> You seem to have a flare for misinterpreting every post I make. I know hobgoblins advance as character class. Hence my example with two 2nd level "fighter class" hobgoblins. It's right there in your quote. All you have to do is read it. Thus, two 2nd level "fighter class" hobgoblins with NPC wealth are 1.8 each. Add in Darkvision, and you get CR 2, not CR 1.
> 
> Please read my examples more carefully in the future. *




Whoops sorry about that.  My bad.  Didn't see the "2nd level" in there hahaha.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 8, 2003)

Okay, now can we get back to the ghoul/ghast thing?  I see this as the ONLY remaining issue with the system at the moment.  Here is what I posted previously.



Okay, looks like we have a hgue debate on our hands about the ghoul and ghast. UK tells me they're underrated in the book. By HIS system, however, they're overrated. After he fixed the numbers, the ghoul still comes out to CR 4 and the ghast to CR 6.

Now I KNOW they're SLIGHTLY underrated in the book at 1 and 3, but I find this to be overcompensation. These numbers imply that a ghoul is as tough as an ogre (laughable) and a ghast is TOUGHER than an ogre (also laughable). UK thinks that everyone would agree to the CR 4 ghoul and CR 6 ghast, but I am here to make my case.

A ghoul has 13 hit points, almost never hits with its deplorable attack bonus, and has very little going for it. The ogre can EASILY kill it with a single hit. Does this sound like an equal challenge? Put both against a Level 4 party. These numbers suggest that a party at Level 4 would expend 20% of their resources against a SINGLE ghoul. This is, of course, laughable at best.

I believe the ghoul to be CR 2, CR 3 MAXIMUM. To demonstrate, I have used ghouls on many occasions. They are one of my favorite monsters. I have NEVER seen a Level 2 party or above have ANY challenge with a ghoul. By Level 3, ghouls are practically insignificant altogether. I have seen my PCs at Level 2 beat a ghast and SIX ghouls, and although that was a tough battle, they did win it albeit barely. This also shows that a single ghoul is not a challenge for such a party.

As for the ghast, it is slightly better, so I might concede it to be EQUAL to an ogre considering it has the same hit points and some good attacks. MAYBE CR 5. Certainly not CR 6 or CR 7, though.

Thoughts, everybody?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 8, 2003)

Firstly, hello to kreynolds mate, I hope you got everything sorted in my absence (thanks for helping out guys). 

Hey mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Here's another thought. I'm looking at Appendix Table 1–1A and what jumps out right away is the way the EL values jump so drastically. Perhaps the problem can be solved there as well. Was there any rhyme or reason to those values? I'm sure they're are, but I can't find the pattern.*




The Encounter Level progression was derived from the EXP tables.

I was toying about with EXP and noticed that essentially everytime you double the level you quodruple the amount of total EXP that character has.

That got me think that perhaps there was a similar formula between CR (which of course parallels Level) and EL.

I applied and tested it and it seemed correct at all points.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *It jumps 4 points, then 2 points, then 2 points, then advances 1 point at a time.
> 
> What if it jumped up by two points instead? Like this...
> 
> ...




No, my progression is correct.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Edit: Using the 1st-level party of four and the two 2nd level fighter hobgoblins again, the encounter can only net 1200 XP for the characters; 300 XP each. That cuts the XP reward in half. Especially for the solitary arcane spellcaster.*




Now if you use my suggestion (of calculating PEL as EL) then it becomes a PEL 5 versus EL 5 encounter (worth 300 XP; 75 XP each).

As always ... tell me what you think. So far I think one or both solutions can potentially work. [/B][/QUOTE]

I am still very dubious that it needs to be changed, it does seem high at low levels, but then so are the risks...however, I am still reviewing the matter.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 8, 2003)

Hi seasong mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Another possibility, just to throw this out there, is that the disproportionate ELs at 1st and 2nd level are a good thing, because it reduces the "real challenge" at the lowest, character-building levels. *




Indeed. Thats something that makes me think it is a good idea, or at the very least not a bad idea.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 8, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> Here it is in a nutshell:
> 
> Level*2 ~= XP*4
> Level = CR
> ...



Looking directly at the equation, if it does not work at lower levels then a problem still exists and the system breaks down. Solve that problem and I suspect even the ghast and ghoul debate will go away.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 8, 2003)

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *AHHHHHHH!  DON'T ASK!!  IT TOOK HIM THREE HOURS TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME!!!*




5 Minutes to explain and 2 Hours and 55 minutes arguing why it was right I seem to recall. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *(By the way, THAT is shouting, hahaha!)*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Seriously, though, I am very mathematically minded, and the theory as a whole made my head spin until I crunched the numbers all the way up to Level 1,000,000. *




Actually I seem to recall you tested it to Level 1 Trillion trying to break it! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Let's just say it's pretty damn complicated and makes no sense unless you actually put yourself in the mind of UK.  I didn't like it at first, either, and brought up the same points.  I shut up about it after he smashed me with the formula and hammered it into my head! *




Initially it might seem complicated; but like the theory of relativity once you understand it you will see how intrinsically simple it is...thats the beauty of it.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 8, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Looking directly at the equation, if it does not work at lower levels then a problem still exists and the system breaks down.*




Tecnically CR 1 to CR 2 should be +3 EL  jump rather than +4 but thats the only sacrifice I made for the formula.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Solve that problem and I suspect even the ghast and ghoul debate will go away. *




There is no Ghoul/Ghast problem as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 8, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Indeed. That's something that makes me think it is a good idea, or at the very least not a bad idea.



Using my above example, let's say that solitary sorcerer does successfully cast _sleep_ on those two 2nd level fighter hobgoblins and then kills them. Let's also say that sorcerer already had 600 XP. He just jumped from level 1 to level 3 without barely lifting a finger.

That's ridiculous.

And if you think that "it's okay" to reduce the challenges faced by lower-level characters, then you are missing the whole point of this game! The lowest levels are not meant to be run through at break neck pace. They are meant to be savored, while facing proportionate challenges at every single level (not just epic levels).

The equation may be "accurate" Upper_Krust, but it has to work at all times to be universally feasible. Don't be blinded by equations that feel "accurate" right now. If you have to create a new equation that "also" works ... then so be it.

I can hear it in your written voices. Don't start rationalizing lower levels away now.


----------



## -Eä- (Apr 8, 2003)

*Y0!*

Y0! 


I'm just popping in to say hello! I must say I haven't followed many of the posts the last month, but I have tried to keep up.

I don't know if you have noticed this, but the system is almost perfect for creating a C++ algorithm for calculating CR, EL and so on... I'm thinking of doing this. It might be a good excersise for my already rusty programming.

Wellwell... It's nice to see someone else interested in the undead here (-: I remember the first discussions on undead gods some a year and a half ago (I think) (-: 

To say something constructive, I add to this post that I think the layout is more user friendly in the third version of the document.

Are you still using Page Maker, U_K? I recently discovered the power of TeX! It's the most custmomisable layout language I have encountered... The versatility is absolute. If you're thinking of continuing publishing PDFs I recommend looking into it.

And, more importantly: I recommend publishing the files both as postscript and PDF. Most Unix and Linux users prefer postscript and there isn't much software for PDFs supporting those platforms... It isn't a major issue, but if it doesn't invlolve much work, please look into it.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 9, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *There is no Ghoul/Ghast problem as far as I am concerned. *




That's because you actually belive the ghoul to be CR 4 and the ghast to be CR 6!

I am willing to dare ANY DM out there to do what I have done.  Stick a ghoul up against a Level 4 party.  Does the ghoul take away 20% of the party's resources?  Of course not!  Yet that is what the numbers have us believe.

First off, I think that if you calculate the paralysis differently, you can get a much better reading.  For one, it's not at all like the Ghoul Touch spell, so that is not an accurate method of calculation.  Second, perhaps multiple attacks should be counted differently as well.

All I know is that a ghoul is a 20% challenge for Level 1 characters generally, although CR 2 looks good and I could settle on CR 3.  CR 4, though?  Not a chance.

The smartest DM in the world could not challenge a Level 4 party with a single ghoul unless the party is reduced to 1 hp per character and the ghoul has maximum hp and a way to get some kind of surprise.  Generally speaking, though, a ghoul is not very tough.

What CR do the rest of you rate ghouls as?


----------



## Anubis (Apr 9, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Using my above example, let's say that solitary sorcerer does successfully cast sleep on those two 2nd level fighter hobgoblins and then kills them. Let's also say that sorcerer already had 600 XP. He just jumped from level 1 to level 3 without barely lifting a finger.
> 
> That's ridiculous.
> 
> ...




Hmmm . . . Well a Level 1 fighter could win initiative over a Pit Fiend, roll 20 three times in a row for an instant death hit, and gain 46,080,000 XP as well, bumping him up to Level uh something really high . . . Fact is, it simply isn't very likely!  Can't account for ALL factors!

Besides, if a Level 1 sorcerer can beat two Level 2 Fighter hobgoblins by himself in a fight, he DESERVES to be Level 3, cause that would be EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to pull off.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 9, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> Hmmm ... Well a Level 1 fighter could win initiative over a Pit Fiend, roll 20 three times in a row for an instant death hit, and gain 46,080,000 XP as well, bumping him up to Level uh something really high . . . Fact is, it simply isn't very likely!  Can't account for ALL factors!



Hmmm ... rolling three 20's in a row or having two 2nd level hobgoblin fighters fail their Will save on an average Hit Dice roll for the spell _sleep_.

What can take we commonly take into account and what breaks the bell curve of normalcy.

Yeah, that's a tough one.





			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> Besides, if a Level 1 sorcerer can beat two Level 2 Fighter hobgoblins by himself in a fight, he DESERVES to be Level 3, cause that would be EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to pull off. [/B]



:

There is nothing even remotely challenging/difficult/heroic (take your pick) about two 2nd level hobgoblins failing their Will saves.

Perspective is desperately needed here Anubis. Please grab some.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 9, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Hmmm ... rolling three 20's in a row or having two 2nd level hobgoblin fighters fail their Will save on an average Hit Dice roll for the spell sleep.
> 
> What can take we commonly take into account and what breaks the bell curve of normalcy.
> ...




Ya' think?  Shall we take a look at odds?  It truly is less likely, BUT I'll bet the chances are closer than you think.  Try to keep up with me if you can.  I will use NPC info from the DMG for my example.  Two hobgoblin Level 2 Fighters and a single human Level 1 Sorcerer.  Remember that hobgoblins get +2 Dex, +2 Con, and +4 Move Silently to the stats in the DMG and the human gets an extra skill and an extra feat.  Also keep in mind that for the purposes of this experiment, we'll be using my optional Toughness feat, something that works to the human's advantage as I give hp +5 instead of hp +3.  The sorcerer will have, as per the book, Toughness and Combat Casting.

First off, Initiative.  Sorcerer +2, Hobgoblins +6.  First thing that has to happen is the Sorcerer must win initiative.  If the sorcerer does not win initiative, the odds are he or she will be dead before getting to do anything, or at least that's what is most likely.  Anyway, the chances of the Sorcerer winning initiative are, since he must roll 5 higher than the hobgoblins, roughly 56%.

Now the Sorcerer casts Sleep.  First off, the Sorcerer must be able to effect enough Hit Dice to hit both of them, so he needs a 4 on 2d4.  The odds are at 71% here, so not bad.  Odds stand at 39%.  Next come the saving throws.  The hobgoblins' Will saves are +1 against DC 13.  The hobgoblins must roll 12 or higher, and generally speaking, they must both fail their saves else one will certainly wake up the other.  The odds of that happening are 20%.  So far the Sorcerer's odds are at 7%.

It's not over yet!  Next up come the kill attempts.  Assuming the Sorcerer moved in after casting Sleep, it is time for a Coup de Grace attempt.  Contrary to popular belief, this does not necessarily result in a kill.  The hobgoblins have 21 hp each.  The Sorcerer has a shortspear, and the damage is 1d8-1/x3 crit.  The average damage of the attack will be 10, certainly not enough to kill by itself.  That does produce the need a DC 20 Fortitude saving throw, though, but the hobgoblins Fortitude saves are +6.  The chances of the Coup de Grace making the kill are, since the hobgoblin must roll 13 or less, 65%.  Then you have the same chances, 65%, killing the other hobgoblin in the subsequent round.  The chances of killing both are 42%, and the overall odds are now sitting at 2%.

Okay, there you have it, a 2% chance of the Sorcerer winning the fight.  Challenging enough for you?

Now compare that to the odds of rolling three 20s in a row.  0.01%.

As I said, the odds aren't too far apart.  2% to 0.01%.  I think you would agree that either happening is incredibly unlikely.

I know what you're thinking.  My own numbers show the former as 200 times more likely.  I understand that.  However, we're also talking about a difference between 10,800 XP and 46,080,000 XP, or 4267 times more!  So for all you gamblers out there, tell me how you work this.  200 times worse odds for 4267 times the payoff.  That's a 21 to 1 factor.  A betting man would put money on the 0.01%.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> :
> 
> There is nothing even remotely challenging/difficult/heroic (take your pick) about two 2nd level hobgoblins failing their Will saves.
> ...




You can find perspective in my previous paragraph, man.  An EL +10 encounter with a 0.02% chance of winning being worth 10,800 XP ain't too bad, and I believe it to be accurate.

My God I can't believe it, I'm actually defending UK's system now!  Hell HAS frozen over!  Wow, looks like you did it for the most part, UK, except for the damn ghouls and ghasts.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 9, 2003)

It would take a lot of house rules and luck for a 1st level PC to be in the situation where rolling 3 20s could kill a pit fiend, which itself is a 1 in 8000 chance.  First he has to get close enough without being noticed, then win initiative, then be able to bypass DR by a magic weapon or some HR'd substance (silver IMC), then an instant-kill rule has to be in effect.

IMC pit fiends can be hurt by silver, but no instant-kill rule, so chance is 0%.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 9, 2003)

I rate ghouls CR 2 & ghasts CR 3, although ghasts could arguably be CR 4.  Ghouls are definitely not CR 1 anyway, a single ghoul can often TPK a party of 4 1st level PCs.

Re hobgoblin fighters - a 2nd level hobgoblin elite fighter with gear and stats as per the DMG tables is indeed CR 2, and worth 600 XP to a low-level party, so 2 of them are worth 1200 XP.  From GMing at that level I can say that the CR is accurate, although the XP award may be too high.  If anything it's a tougher foe than a CR 2 bugbear.

However, if you take away the hobgoblin fighter-2's 2500gp worth of gear, Elite stats, his max hp on the first die, and equip him as the CR 1/2 MM hobgoblin warrior-1, I'd say his CR is 1, same as a hobgoblin warrior-2, although he'll on average have 2 more hp.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 9, 2003)

*Experience Points*

Hi all! 

Seemingly we have encountered one of those speed bumps I predicted would occur when we removed Ability Scores from the equation...I hate to say I told you so. 

However, I think a solution should present itself once we mull over the facts. I am sure the proof is in the pudding.

Two factors are responsible for generating more EXP than usual from 1st to 4th-level.

Firstly that EL is now responsible for EXP.
Secondly that certain CRs are now higher.

Under the current rules a character must face: 
13.3 encounters of EL +/-0 to ascend each level.
8.8 encounters of EL +1
6.6 encounters of EL +2
4.4 encounters of EL +3
3.3 encounters of EL +4 (50/50 encounters)
2.2 encounters of EL +5
1.6 encounters of EL +6
1.1 encounters of EL +7
0.8 encounters of EL +8

My rules use the same premise. However, they _correctly_ assign a higher EL to the relationship between CR/Levels 1 - 4.

Meaning that if a 1st-level party were only to encounter tough challenges it would ascend in level quicker. But it should be noted that more difficult challenges at low levels (especially 1st-level) can more often than not lead to players rolling up new characters, unless the DM is comfortable fudging a few rolls behind a DMs screen.

So if you are going to play the game 100% fair, use the system as is. If you are happy fudging a few rolls to keep players alive then I would suggest employing a situational modifier of -1 EL.

According to the DMG, the two Hobgoblins would be worth 1200 EXP. (instead of the 2400 my system purports). However, I am happy with my results. Obviously if the party surprise the Hobgoblins and 'get the jump on them' and both Hobgoblins fall to a single sleep spell then I would consider that a situational modifier resulting in a -1 EL penalty.

So essentially I would handle this with situational modifiers, since if we treat NPCs as fairly as PCs then my system is flawless. However, I should perhaps expand on situational modifiers section in the pdf since it currently is little more than a footnote.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 9, 2003)

From play, I'd rate the difference between Elite and Average ability scores (+10 points in point buy, from 15 to 25) as +1 CR.  I don't think +20 points would be +2 CR though, it's the total stat plusses that matter, especially the plusses to the relevant combat stats, and there are diminishing returns.  +10 point-buy gives around +5 to relevant stats, +20 gives around +7.5, depending on how they're assigned.  I suggest (using traditional DMG CR-rating method):

Points  CR mod
10          +1
30          +2
60          +3
100        +4

This handily parrallels the XP table.  Points are point-buy points, ie more than 1 per stat over 14.


----------



## xanatos (Apr 9, 2003)

This is the last group of things that sounded strange after reading the pdf two or three times. (for UK)

ECL: perhaps you should add "usable at will"... A Cure Light Wounds Usable At Will is quite powerful (it's like a Fast Healing Not Usable in Combat). Players always try to maximize "usable at will" abilities, while monsters can use them only a few times before dying.

Vorpal Strike and Devastating Critical
Isn't the first too much better than the second? (No save against Fort Save) (the Fort Save is based on Con and HD... Bigger creatures have both of them... Epic Creatures are quite often Big... So...)

Revised Spells
If you revise Harm and Heal then you should add higher versions of both with higher HD, and perhaps you should add both othem (Heal + Harm) to the "Cure" group (so that Clerics can spontaneously cast them).

Some things that are missing: CR for very damaging monsters (in HtH) / monsters with abilities with impossible DC (both of them are quite often connected to very high attributes) 
"Leveled" intelligence of monsters (number of tactics/strategies that they can use) (ok... I know... Many DM play Dragons and zombies in the same way)
"Modes and flexibility" of attacks (only HtH w/o Fly, HtH + Fly/Ranged Attack, only nonmagical, only magical, nonmagical + magical)

Is there a chapter in your book on how to solve the problem of "absolutes" in a game like DnD? (Indestructible/Invulnerable/Die without Save (Vorpal and other effects)/Mor Dis Sph/etc.) and a chapter about "show stopping" spells (Save or Die/Save or Charm/...) but probably even againt "show resuming spells" (True Resurrection... Pay 5000gp and restart...)

Sample CR of monsters: you should modify the small Headings (or remove them) (Arrowhawk, barghest, celestial...), or put all the non classified monsters under "Various" (no, a Titan is not a Slaad and a Ha-Naga is not a Golem!) and you forgot two headings in the Epic Monsters... Sirrush and Slaad. And Worm that walks should be capitalized.

Oh... Yes... Do you think you will publish it before or after 3.5?

Bye


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 9, 2003)

Upper_Krust,

Another question for ya'. What kind of modifier would you assign to a template that gets maximum hit points per each hit die? Would you base the modifier on the die type? For example, Dragons get +0.75 per die. If the dragon was guaranteed maximum hit points, what would you raise it by? I was thinking of raising it by an additional +0.25. Basically, it would end up looking something like this...

CR +1/HD Dragons
CR +0.95/HD Outsider
CR +0.9/HD Magical Beasts
CR +0.85/HD Monstrous Humanoids; Shapechangers and (Intelligent) Undead
CR +0.8/HD Aberrations; Beasts; Elementals; Giants and Humanoids
CR +0.75/HD Animals; Constructs; Fey; Oozes; Plants; (Mindless) Undead and Vermin.

What do you think? Anyone else's input would be valuable as well.


----------



## seasong (Apr 9, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> Ya' think? Shall we take a look at odds? It truly is less likely, BUT I'll bet the chances are closer than you think. Try to keep up with me if you can.



Anubis is correct. His incidental math is wrong, however, and that causes me pain. Here is the corrected math:

Incidentally, I'm assuming 13 hp for the hobgoblins (avg roll + CON).
Sorcerer winning initiative: 30%
Rolling 4 or higher on 2d4 for sleep: 81.25%
First hobgoblin fails save (DC 13): 55%
Second hobgoblin fails save (DC 13): 55%
Possible damages (12.5% chance of each): 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 (dead), 18 (dead), 21 (dead)
Total chance of 1st hobgoblin dying (damage OR failed save): 67.5%
Total chance of 2nd hobgoblin dying (damage OR failed save): 67.5%

If a hobgoblin doesn't die, he wakes up, and the sorcerer has a fight on his hands.

Chance of success: 3.36% (rounded to 3 significant digits)

This is one of those tactics that seems good until put in practice. In practice, AFTER you've won initiative (which is unlikely), you roll those 2d4s and pray, pray, pray to the dice gods not to roll a pair of ones. Then you watch the DM roll saves and pray, pray, pray to the dice gods to roll low. Then you gulp, take your spear, and realize that you might not kill them... in fact, after everything you've just done in this combat, you still only have slightly less than a 50% chance of doing sufficient damage to kill them in one blow.

So you run away, and take whatever the DM decides the "overcome XP" is for the harrowing initial rolls. Anyone who thinks this isn't a tough fight hasn't tried it, or got very lucky. And "lucky rolls" is sufficient for high XP.


----------



## seasong (Apr 9, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> Another question for ya'. What kind of modifier would you assign to a template that gets maximum hit points per each hit die? Would you base the modifier on the die type? For example, Dragons get +0.75 per die. If the dragon was guaranteed maximum hit points, what would you raise it by? I was thinking of raising it by an additional +0.25.



This is answered, indirectly, on p.8 (Class Creation). Basically, the Hit Die assumes an average roll (rounded up) x0.05 CR. For example a d10 averages 6 hp (after rounding up) and gives +0.3 CR.

Max hit points on d12 would be worth +0.25, just as you guessed. The others are a bit off (for example, monstrous humanoids, at d8 HD, should only gain +0.15 per HD, to a net CR +0.75).

Of course, I could be wrong, and Upper Krust could be doing something different behind the scenes, but the above seems to work really well .


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 9, 2003)

I asked you to grab some perspective Anubis, you did, and you still couldn't see the evidence presented directly in front of you ... by (of all people) you!

First of all, 3 natural 20s in a row (as was pointed out) is a 1 in 8000 chance. Do the math and you get 0.000125%. Even if I used your flawed sorcerer versus hobgoblin scenario...

Sorcerer (Hennet presumably) has +2 to initiative/hobgoblins have +1/sorcerer wins initiative 55% of the time
The DC spell save for 1st level spell cast by Hennet is 13/hobgoblins will fail 60% of the time
Hobgoblin hp should be 13 (as Seasong also pointed out)
Hobgoblin Fortitude saves should be +4/hobgoblins will fail coup de grace 75% of the time
Sorcerer only has to do (approximately) 14¼% more damage each time than average to end the encounter at the coup de grace
...of 2%, that's still a difference of 16,000 (not 200). Talk about adding insult to an already injured example. There's your perspective.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 9, 2003)

How about Energy Absorption (converting one energy type into healing hit points)? I'm wasn't surprised that it wasn't in there, as very few monsters have the ability, but I figured it would have a base modifier equal to the same for Energy Immunity (+1), but would then have an additional modifier. Do y'all think it should be an additional +1? Maybe higher?


----------



## seasong (Apr 9, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> Sorcerer (Hennet presumably) has +2 to initiative/hobgoblins have +1/sorcerer wins initiative 55% of the time




57.25% of the time. Where are you people getting your initiative calculations? I mean, it was at least close this time..



> The DC spell save for 1st level spell cast by Hennet is 13/hobgoblins will fail 60% of the time




Level 2 fighters should have a cloak of resistance +1, even as NPCs. This is assumed in the DMG. They will fail 55% of the time.

And BOTH of them will fail only 30.25% of the time.



> Hobgoblin hp should be 13 (as Seasong also pointed out)
> Hobgoblin Fortitude saves should be +4/hobgoblins will fail coup de grace 75% of the time




Hobgoblin Fort +3, Fighter-2 Fort +3; total +6. They will fail based on the damage rolled; if more than 13 hp is rolled, they are dead without a Fort save. If the damage roll is:

1 = 70% chance of survival (assumes min 1 dmg)
2 = 70% chance of survival
3 = 55% chance of survival
4 = 40% chance of survival
5 = 25% chance of survival
6+ = 0% chance of survival (15 hp damage)

That comes out to ONE failing 67.5% of the time; or BOTH failing 45.6% of the time.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 9, 2003)

A cloak of resistance at 2nd level? Seems strange to me that magic items would be parceled out so easily, but I did grab an iconic character, so I guess that was my fault.

As for Fortitute saves, hobgoblins advance as character class. As I understand it, you shouldn't be adding in their humanoid Fortitute bonus as well.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 9, 2003)

Hi S'mon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I rate ghouls CR 2 & ghasts CR 3, although ghasts could arguably be CR 4.  Ghouls are definitely not CR 1 anyway, a single ghoul can often TPK a party of 4 1st level PCs. *




Exactly, the ghoul can slap an entire 1st-level party, the CR reflects this.


----------



## seasong (Apr 9, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> A cloak of resistance at 2nd level? Seems strange to me that magic items would be parceled out so easily, but I did grab an iconic character, so I guess that was my fault.



I'm also not checking things thoroughly, myself, other than the math - given the base assumptions. The only thing that annoyed me was that, _given_ the base assumptions, the math was wrong. However, below, you will find my outlined attempt with MY base assumptions, instead of whatever  y'all toss out up there . <-- please note smiley







> As for Fortitute saves, hobgoblins advance as character class. As I understand it, you shouldn't be adding in their humanoid Fortitute bonus as well.



Actually, for some reason I was thinking they were a 2HD race. My bad on that. So, here's MY base assumptions, and the resulting math:

Twink 1st level Human Wizard:
HP 5 (d4 max, +1 CON)
Spell DC 15 (+1 spell level, +4 INT)
Initiative +1 (+1 DEX)
Spear 1d8-1 (x3 crit) (-1 STR)

Hobgoblin Fighter-2
HP 13 (2d10 avg, +1 CON per HD)
Fort +4 (+3 class, +1 CON)
Will +0 (+0 class, +0 WIS)
Initiative +1 (+1 DEX) (Note: initiative tie, hobgoblin wins, DEX 13)
Longsword 1d8+1 (+1 STR)

For "fairness", we will assume that neither the wizard nor the hobgoblins has taken Improved Initiative, and that the hobgoblins are 20 ft away from the wizard at the start of the round. If the hobgoblins are within striking distance, the wizard is dead regardless; if the hobgoblins are too far away, they'll just use javelins.

1. Roll initiative. Wizard has a 47.5% chance of success.
- Failure: Wizard dies.
- Success: Go to step 2.
2. Wizard casts spell. We will assume he is 10-30 ft away.
3. Hobgoblin 1 rolls save: 70% chance of succumbing.
- Does not succumb: Wizard dies.
- Succumbs: Go to step 4.
4. Hobgoblin 2 rolls save: 70% chance of failure.
- Does not succumb: Wizard dies.
- Succumbs: Go to step 5.
5. Wizard _coup de graces_ Hobgoblin 1. 73.75% chance of death.
- If Hobgoblin does not die, Wizard dies.
- If Hobgoblin dies, go to step 6.
6. Wizard _coup de graces_ Hobgoblin 2. 73.75% chance of death.
- If Hobgoblin does not die, Wizard dies.
- If Hobgoblin dies, WIZARD WINS.

Total chance of success: 12.7%
Chance of meaty death: 87.3%

I STILL say that the wizard deserves the XP - that's a damned risky gamble, and pulling it off is equivalent to the DM saying, "Aw right, now, I'm gonna roll this here 1d8, and iffen it comes up a ONE, you gets some XP... an' iffen it DON'T, you die."


----------



## Anubis (Apr 9, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *It would take a lot of house rules and luck for a 1st level PC to be in the situation where rolling 3 20s could kill a pit fiend, which itself is a 1 in 8000 chance.  First he has to get close enough without being noticed, then win initiative, then be able to bypass DR by a magic weapon or some HR'd substance (silver IMC), then an instant-kill rule has to be in effect.
> 
> IMC pit fiends can be hurt by silver, but no instant-kill rule, so chance is 0%. *




Well, I go by all he base rules and most of the special DM options stated in the DMG.  Also, DR does not protect against the Instant Kill rules, only critical hit immunity does.  A Commoner with a normal dagger could kill a Pit Fiend using the Instant Kill rule.  It's the thing that adds the "chance that anybody could kill anything" realism factor to the game.  Basically, anyone can get "lucky".

Of course you do have many house rules and you do not follow the books as closely as I do.  I'm merely talking about a standard game by the rules in the book when I speak of the Instant Kill rule, which I do use in my games.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 10, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, I go by all he base rules and most of the special DM options stated in the DMG.  Also, DR does not protect against the Instant Kill rules, only critical hit immunity does.  A Commoner with a normal dagger could kill a Pit Fiend using the Instant Kill rule.  It's the thing that adds the "chance that anybody could kill anything" realism factor to the game.  Basically, anyone can get "lucky".
> 
> Of course you do have many house rules and you do not follow the books as closely as I do.  I'm merely talking about a standard game by the rules in the book when I speak of the Instant Kill rule, which I do use in my games. *




Using the instant-kill rule is no more 'standard' than not using it, and your interpretation of it is IMO considerably less so.  I don't believe the designers intended to suggest it was possible to insta-kill a creature if you couldn't bypass its DR to do any damage with a regular critical.  This is also what makes your rule unrealistic IMO - if you can't hurt X even enough to do 1hp damage, it's not at all realistic that you could instantly kill it.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 10, 2003)

Howdy Seasong.

Oh I think we can improve this wizard's chances further still. If you are going to create your own arcane spellcaster, rather than use the iconics, I think we can safely assume that wizards and sorcerers put their second highest roll into Dexterity. If the iconics were smart enough to do so, then I think "Twink" is too. I will use the standard attribute array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 in the following order...

Str 10
Dex 14
Con 12
Int 15
Wis 13
Cha 8

Twink is a human, so rather than choosing silly feats (to be fair as you say) he will choose feats that actually make sense, of which Improved Initiative is definitely one and Spell Focus (enchantment) is definitely another. Twink is a 1st level wizard and so takes every advantage he can get. He's not stupid after all. The important detail to note here is that it *makes sense* for a wizard to take Improved Initiative. Twink also took _shield_ as one of his 1st level spells.

For the record as well, wizards are not proficient with short spears, but let's say Twink carries one strictly for the purposes of making a coup de grace. If you disagree, then we can redo this whole example with a sorcerer, switching 15 Int for 15 Cha.

Let's see now, the standard feat for a hobgoblin is Alertness but these 2nd level fighter hobgoblins also get a 1st and 2nd level fighter bonus feat. You could give them Improved Initiative as one of those feats, but to my way of thinking, fighters usually take much more offensive feats (Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Great Cleave). Still, the option is there. You would be tweaking out your *standard hobgoblins* specifically to resist my *tailored version* of Twink, but it's possible.

Let the combat begin!

More often than not, Twink will win initiative (even if your hobgoblins took Improved Initiative).

Let's see now, you placed the range at  20 feet?

Poppycock!

Again, Twink is not stupid. His _sleep_ spell has a range pf 110 feet at 1st level, so he is going to take advantage of that distance and cast at 100 ft.

If Twink wins initiative, he will cast _shield_ on himself first. If Twink lost initiative, the hobgoblins can reach Twink in 1 round with a x4 movement action (assuming they are aware of him 100 feet away with a -10 on Spot checks and a +10 on opposed Listen checks), but can do nothing else. Twink takes a 5 foot step back (negating AoO's and his need to make a Concentration check) and casts _sleep_ on the hobgoblins at that point. The DC for _sleep_ is 15.

If the hobgoblins *are not* put to sleep by the spell, Twink might be in trouble, although his AC is 19 now (if he won initiative) and AC 12 (if he lost). The hobgoblins only have +2 to their melee attacks and +3 to their ranged attacks. You do the math. If Twink won initiative, he is certainly not "dead by default".



If Twink can survive one more round, perhaps he will take advantage of his class granted Scribe Scroll feat by casting a written spell (remember Twink has 600 XP and a 1st level scroll only cost 12 ½ gp and 1 XP to create). For now, I'm *not* going to bother exploring that possibility ... as I prefer to keep this example simple.

If the hobgoblins *are* put to sleep by the spell, then it's a cakewalk for Twink. He can inflict an average minimum damage of 13 during a coup de grace with his shortspear. End of story. They don't even need to make their Fortitude saving throws and Twink will stab each hobgoblin twice for good measure.

Now, keeping all of those factors in mind, what are the new chances of survival?

If the hobgoblins are CR 2, that's 2400 XP. I say too much for such an easy task.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 10, 2003)

The real question (for you Upper_Krust) is...

...at what point do *non-core character races* fall into the ECL 0.5 category for when racial abilities do not count towards CR?

Right now, you have a +0.2 CR for darkvision. That will always be a racial ability. When does it count and when does it not? 

Furthermore, why do racial abilities not count towards CR? A modifier of up +0.5 can be a significant deciding factor where CR is concerned.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 10, 2003)

*Re: Y0!*

Hey all! 

I know EnWorld has been down for 24 hours for the server change but my internet access was down for almost 12 hours before that as well, so a lot to catch up with, bear with me...

Hi Eä mate! 

apologies for initially missing this post in the crush. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Y0! *




BOOYAKASHA! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I'm just popping in to say hello! I must say I haven't followed many of the posts the last month, but I have tried to keep up.*




This thread is akin to a comfortable pair of slippers...its always there for you when you need it. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I don't know if you have noticed this, but the system is almost perfect for creating a C++ algorithm for calculating CR, EL and so on... I'm thinking of doing this. It might be a good excersise for my already rusty programming.*




So what you are saying is that I am a good mathematician as well...and I didn't even know it.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Well well... It's nice to see someone else interested in the undead here (-: I remember the first discussions on undead gods some a year and a half ago (I think) (-: *




Hey if you want we can arrange it for Clay_More to send you the Hellsing discs (after I send them to him). I think you would really enjoy them too mate.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *To say something constructive, I add to this post that I think the layout is more user friendly in the third version of the document.*




Glad to hear it! 

Is there anyone out there who doesn't like the layout of Version 3? Let me know, I appreciate all feedback.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Are you still using Page Maker, U_K? *




Yes mate. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I recently discovered the power of TeX! It's the most custmomisable layout language I have encountered... The versatility is absolute. If you're thinking of continuing publishing PDFs I recommend looking into it.*




I am happy with Pagemaker which has taken me a while to get to grips with I don't want to start having to learn something else.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *And, more importantly: I recommend publishing the files both as postscript and PDF. Most Unix and Linux users prefer postscript and there isn't much software for PDFs supporting those platforms... It isn't a major issue, but if it doesn't invlolve much work, please look into it. *




Mmmm...well I'll have a think.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 10, 2003)

Hi xanatos mate! 



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *This is the last group of things that sounded strange after reading the pdf two or three times. (for UK)*




Sure, fire away.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *ECL: perhaps you should add "usable at will"... A Cure Light Wounds Usable At Will is quite powerful (it's like a Fast Healing Not Usable in Combat). Players always try to maximize "usable at will" abilities, while monsters can use them only a few times before dying.*




I had an ECL bonus to spell-like abilities in an early draft, I must have removed that by accident.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Vorpal Strike and Devastating Critical
> Isn't the first too much better than the second? (No save against Fort Save) (the Fort Save is based on Con and HD... Bigger creatures have both of them... Epic Creatures are quite often Big... So...)*




Actually I am making Vorpal Strike a deific ability and suggesting its removal from the epic feat list. I was deliberating the matter when I typed up the previous draft of the CR/EL document, I just 'played it safe at the last minute'. 



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Revised Spells
> If you revise Harm and Heal then you should add higher versions of both with higher HD, and perhaps you should add both of them (Heal + Harm) to the "Cure" group (so that Clerics can spontaneously cast them).*




I only have enough room for certain changes. I could fill a book creating heal and harm variants.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Some things that are missing: CR for very damaging monsters (in HtH) *




Can you give me an example?



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *monsters with abilities with impossible DC (both of them are quite often connected to very high attributes)*




Again, any examples?



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *"Leveled" intelligence of monsters (number of tactics/strategies that they can use) (ok... I know... Many DM play Dragons and zombies in the same way)*




I'm determining CRs, combat and tactics are left up to the DM and can be handled through situational modifiers.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *"Modes and flexibility" of attacks (only HtH w/o Fly, HtH + Fly/Ranged Attack, only nonmagical, only magical, nonmagical + magical)*




If I understand you correctly (?) these are handled with situational modifiers.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Is there a chapter in your book on how to solve the problem of "absolutes" in a game like DnD?*




I believe I can solve that without resorting to a whole chapter to do so. 



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *(Indestructible/Invulnerable/Die without Save (Vorpal and other effects)/Mor Dis Sph/etc.)*




I have this dealt with.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *and a chapter about "show stopping" spells (Save or Die/Save or Charm/...) but probably even againt "show resuming spells" (True Resurrection... Pay 5000gp and restart...)*




What exactly do you think is wrong with these spells?



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Sample CR of monsters: you should modify the small Headings (or remove them) (Arrowhawk, barghest, celestial...), or put all the non classified monsters under "Various" (no, a Titan is not a Slaad and a Ha-Naga is not a Golem!) and you forgot two headings in the Epic Monsters... Sirrush and Slaad. And Worm that walks should be capitalized.*




I only have so many lines on a page. 



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Oh... Yes... Do you think you will publish it before or after 3.5?
> *




The pdf version definately, the print version no.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 10, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust,*




Hey kreynolds mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Another question for ya'. What kind of modifier would you assign to a template that gets maximum hit points per each hit die? Would you base the modifier on the die type? For example, Dragons get +0.75 per die. If the dragon was guaranteed maximum hit points, what would you raise it by? I was thinking of raising it by an additional +0.25. Basically, it would end up looking something like this...
> 
> CR +1/HD Dragons
> CR +0.95/HD Outsider
> ...




Actually maximum hit points is one of the powers given to immortals. Technically I rate it at +0.7 (total). Though it is probably less useful to those with d4 Hit Dice and more useful to those with d12 Hit Dice, I was forced to find a comfortable average though.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 10, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Technically I rate it at +0.7 (total). Though it is probably less useful to those with d4 Hit Dice and more useful to those with d12 Hit Dice, I was forced to find a comfortable average though. *




Why where you forced to find a comfortable average? Your system seems extremely flexible, and though I have only a small grasp of it, it would appear to be able to handle smaller adjustments perfectly.

Was there an inherent problem with using different values based upon hit die? It seems to work exceedingly well for the values assigned to hit die in the monster/class design section, so shouldn't it work just as well for this?

By the way, how much with the Immortal's Handbook be? I need to go ahead and set aside the cash for this puppy.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 10, 2003)

Hi kreynolds mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Why where you forced to find a comfortable average? Your system seems extremely flexible, and though I have only a small grasp of it, it would appear to be able to handle smaller adjustments perfectly.*




Indeed, when you are defining them on a case by case basis.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Was there an inherent problem with using different values based upon hit die? It seems to work exceedingly well for the values assigned to hit die in the monster/class design section, so shouldn't it work just as well for this?*




No the problem was there was no way I could predict what class level a deity would take.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *By the way, how much with the Immortal's Handbook be? I need to go ahead and set aside the cash for this puppy.  *




The pdfs or the Print Version?

All these things are fairly standard priced (typically by page count) these days are they not?


----------



## Anubis (Apr 10, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Howdy Seasong.
> 
> Oh I think we can improve this wizard's chances further still. If you are going to create your own arcane spellcaster, rather than use the iconics, I think we can safely assume that wizards and sorcerers put their second highest roll into Dexterity.
> *




This is your first mistake.  Constitution is almost ALWAYS the second highest stat.  Anything else is pretty stupid.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> If the iconics were smart enough to do so, then I think "Twink" is too. I will use the standard attribute array of 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 in the following order...
> 
> Str 10
> ...




You are creating a wizard for the sole purpose of winning this battle.  I have NEVER seen a PC take this route.  Toughness and Combat Casting are the feats chosen a good 90% of the time.  Improved Initiative is usually the NEXT feat.  I don't know ANYONE who takes Spell Focus (enchantment), because Spell Focus (evocation), Spell Focus (transmutation), and Spell Focus (necromancy) serve the wizard much better.  Unless he is an Enchanter, which isn't the common scenario.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> For the record as well, wizards are not proficient with short spears, but let's say Twink carries one strictly for the purposes of making a coup de grace. If you disagree, then we can redo this whole example with a sorcerer, switching 15 Int for 15 Cha.
> *




I would disagree, seeing as I've never known a wizard to carry a weapon he can't use just on the off-chance he'll have to be by himself and coup de grace.  Also, the Sorcerer is quite unlikely to take Shield, as it is a utility defense spell and MOST Sorcerers are splat mages.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Let's see now, the standard feat for a hobgoblin is Alertness but these 2nd level fighter hobgoblins also get a 1st and 2nd level fighter bonus feat. You could give them Improved Initiative as one of those feats, but to my way of thinking, fighters usually take much more offensive feats (Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Great Cleave). Still, the option is there. You would be tweaking out your *standard hobgoblins* specifically to resist my *tailored version* of Twink, but it's possible.
> *




No I wouldn't.  Improved Initiative is one of the standard feats choesen by the NPC fighter in the DMG.  My example used the two fighters from the DMG for the hobgoblins (stats modified as per DMG p.58) and the sorcerer for the human.  Everything I used was considered STANDARD.  What YOU are doing is tailor-making a character to deal with this combat.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Let the combat begin!
> *




You've already lost this debate by not using standards, but I'll humor you.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> More often than not, Twink will win initiative (even if your hobgoblins took Improved Initiative).
> 
> Let's see now, you placed the range at  20 feet?
> ...




Most combat begins within 30 feet.  Only overland encounters are different.  MOST things happen in *dungeons*, though, so it's safe to assume the combat begins at under 30 feet.

Since your entire scenario is negated by using only an example that fits your needs, I see no reason to continue.  Under your assumed scenario, the Wizard could indeed win.

I, however, gave a COMMON scenario, something that would be much more likely to happen.  A Sorcerer standard out of the book, the most likely feats at Level 1, and hobgoblins that were ready-made from the DMG.

There's your perspective for ya'.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 10, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *The real question (for you Upper_Krust) is...
> 
> ...at what point do *non-core character races* fall into the ECL 0.5 category for when racial abilities do not count towards CR?
> 
> ...




To be honest I think you can get away with this either way.


----------



## seasong (Apr 10, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman's twink wizard vs hobgob's:

Str 10, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 15, Wis 13, Cha 8
HP: 5
Spell DC: 13 (15 for enchantment only)
Initiative +6 (+2 DEX, +4 improved initiative)
Feats: improved initiative, focus: enchantment
Spear 1d8+0

A few comments: This character is twinked pretty well for casting sleep or charm at the beginning of combat. He's twinked pretty rotten for being a wizard, however, and at higher levels, he's really going to feel the bite of the suck vampire. He's also not well designed for being part of a team, or for fighting reach creatures in team situations, where going first = AoO. In the campaign I'm currently running, against the creatures the players have faced thus far, this "twink" would already be dead. I'll humor you, though, and let you play a character designed only for this one encounter.

Hobgoblin Fighter-2
HP 13 (2d10 avg, +1 CON per HD)
Fort +4 (+3 class, +1 CON)
Will +0 (+0 class, +0 WIS)
Initiative +5 (+1 DEX, +4 improved initiative, weapon focus)
(Note: initiative tie, hobgoblin loses, DEX 13)
Longsword 1d8+1 (+1 STR)

For "fairness", we will assume that neither the wizard nor the hobgoblins has taken Improved Initiative, and that the hobgoblins are 20 ft away from the wizard at the start of the round. If the hobgoblins are within striking distance, the wizard is dead regardless; if the hobgoblins are too far away, they'll just use javelins (or charge, or die, etc.).

1. Roll initiative. Wizard has a 57.25% chance of success.
- Failure: Wizard dies.*
- Success: Go to step 2.
2. Wizard casts spell. We will assume he is 10-30 ft away.
3. Hobgoblin 1 rolls save: 70% chance of succumbing.
- Does not succumb: Wizard dies.*
- Succumbs: Go to step 4.
4. Hobgoblin 2 rolls save: 70% chance of failure.
- Does not succumb: Wizard dies.*
- Succumbs: Go to step 5.
5. Wizard coup de graces Hobgoblin 1. 83.75% chance of death.
- If Hobgoblin does not die, Wizard dies.*
- If Hobgoblin dies, go to step 6.
6. Wizard coup de graces Hobgoblin 2. 83.75% chance of death.
- If Hobgoblin does not die, Wizard dies.*
- If Hobgoblin dies, WIZARD WINS.

Total chance of success: 19.76%
Chance of meaty death: 80.24%

We're still good on XP, here. Also note that you have sacrificed your general Spell DC in return for initiative, which is arguably not that important to a spell caster except in specialized situations... and in that specialized situation, you've only improved your chance of success by x1.5... and it's STILL way too risky.

* If a round ends with the hobgoblins adjacent to the wizard, they will get their attacks, PLUS attacks of opportunity the next round, with ONE attack doing sufficient damage, on average, to kill the wizard.







			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> Twink is a human, so rather than choosing silly feats (to be fair as you say) he will choose feats that actually make sense, of which Improved Initiative is definitely one and Spell Focus (enchantment) is definitely another.




Note: spell focus (enchantment) is a nice choice for this single encounter. For higher levels, and other encounters, it's a pretty rotten choice. Improved initiative is useful if you are by yourself, otherwise, for wizards, it's generally better to go with something like defensive casting. And if you'd stopped focusing on the initiative so much, you wouldn't have had to take spell focus just to get the same spell DC - you could have gotten a higher DC, in fact. Since the spell DC counts twice in your chances and initiative only counts once, this was a poor choice.







> The important detail to note here is that it *makes sense* for a wizard to take Improved Initiative. Twink also took _shield_ as one of his 1st level spells.



An excellent choice. Since it only lasts for one minute, when will he cast it? Unless you are referring to your ambush example, which, as mentioned, is reduced EL.







> For the record as well, wizards are not proficient with short spears, but let's say Twink carries one strictly for the purposes of making a coup de grace. If you disagree, then we can redo this whole example with a sorcerer, switching 15 Int for 15 Cha.



That was my intent.







> Let's see now, the standard feat for a hobgoblin is Alertness but these 2nd level fighter hobgoblins also get a 1st and 2nd level fighter bonus feat. You could give them Improved Initiative as one of those feats, but to my way of thinking, fighters usually take much more offensive feats (Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Great Cleave). Still, the option is there. You would be tweaking out your *standard hobgoblins* specifically to resist my *tailored version* of Twink, but it's possible.



No more so than your "cast first and get hit by a couple of AoOs" wizard is . And really, for fighters, going first can mean the difference between cleaving two orcs, or death. I'm not sure why you think taking it is silly - for a low level fighter on the front line, it's often the only difference between life and death.







> Let's see now, you placed the range at  20 feet?
> 
> Poppycock!
> 
> Again, Twink is not stupid. His _sleep_ spell has a range pf 110 feet at 1st level, so he is going to take advantage of that distance and cast at 100 ft.



Ah, so Twink is the one planning when and where the encounter will happen? Ambush, ECL -2. Otherwise, Twink has little choice in whether or not to "take advantage of that distance".

If the hobgoblins were planning when and where the encounter happened (Alertness, remember? Does your Twink have Hide?), it would be 5 ft. And even if you won initiative, it wouldn't matter. Start to cast, get hit once or twice, DIE.







> If the hobgoblins *are* put to sleep by the spell, then it's a cakewalk for Twink. He can inflict an average minimum damage of 13 during a coup de grace with his shortspear. End of story. They don't even need to make their Fortitude saving throws and Twink will stab each hobgoblin twice for good measure.



Your chances of doing average damage or more is 50%. Your chances of doing it TWICE are only 25%. Your only hope is to do sufficient damage that their fortitude save sucks.







> Now, keeping all of those factors in mind, what are the new chances of survival?



See above. Roughly 1 in 5, still pretty crappy.


----------



## xanatos (Apr 10, 2003)

> > If you revise Harm and Heal then you should add higher versions of both with higher HD, and perhaps you should add both of them (Heal + Harm) to the "Cure" group (so that Clerics can spontaneously cast them).
> 
> 
> 
> I only have enough room for certain changes. I could fill a book creating heal and harm variants.



Yes, but remember that by changing the Heal and Harm you are creating a hole. There wasn't any Single Target Healing Spell at 7th, 8th and 9th level because Heal was absolute. But if Heal is not absolute, then there is the need for better Healing (especially when a PC can have 300/400 hp!).
And then there is the Heal = Cure. If a single Heal doesn't completly heal a player, then he will need multiple heal, and the old problem "the cleric has to prepare only healing spells" will return (Cure Critical Wounds is quite useless at epic levels!)



> > Some things that are missing: CR for very damaging monsters (in HtH)
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give me an example?



Dragons are typical example (they have a high damaging breath weapon. And then, if you want to create a complete method to calculate CR you have to consider even bad monster writer! There are new "official" monsters every month (Dungeon+Dragon+Wizard's web), plus tons of "fans created". Designing monsters is an art, calculating CR should be more a science than an art!



> > monsters with abilities with impossible DC (both of them are quite often connected to very high attributes.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, any examples?



Genius Loci? An Enslave with a DC of 53 and an half-CR of 27.
Hagunemnon (half-DC of 24) specials attacks based on Cha are 10 + 22 (half HD) + 12 = DC 44 and their Deva Critical DC is 10+16(or 17)+21(or 22)=DC 47
Hunefer (half CR = 25, with your rules for Dev. Critical): Dev. Critical DC = 10 + 12 (or 13... I always forget the rounding rules)+ 18 = DC 40
Leshay (half CR 25): Gaze Charm DC 53!
Shadow of the Void (half CR 28): DC of 37 or lose 6 perm Con, and save every round for 6 more rounds, for every hit!



> > "Modes and flexibility" of attacks (only HtH w/o Fly, HtH + Fly/Ranged Attack, only nonmagical, only magical, nonmagical + magical)
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand you correctly (?) these are handled with situational modifiers.



I think they are intrinsic of the monster. A flying breathing Dragon is a true dragon. A walking dragon is a pet! 
Especially at high levels players will have abilities to become immune to some attacks. A monster that has many different attacks can balance this (but he will lose rounds to discover the right attack).
An example of this: a monster that can cast fireboll, lightening bolt, magic missile, an ice spell and a sonic spell isn't so much stronger than a monster that can cast only fireball, unless the party is immune to fire (in SAS (Silver Age Sentinel) to solve this you pay full cost only for the most powerful attack, and you pay a fixed price for each other less powerful attack (because with secondary attacks you are paying only for flexibility, not for raw power)




> > and a chapter about "show stopping" spells (Save or Die/Save or Charm/...) but probably even againt "show resuming spells" (True Resurrection... Pay 5000gp and restart...)
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly do you think is wrong with these spells?



a) Epic DnD is full of Save Or Die spells! Very full... No... Wait... Fuller!  This is probably because damage dealing spells at epic levels:
1) Su#k (the number of dices of damage go up slower than the combined HD and Con of monsters) (and I can even prove this... Look at Epic monsters... Their designers discovered that it was useless to give them 20d6 of breath weapon... So they gave them 2d4 of perm Con Drain... at 30 Level it's 60 hp with no save that can't be quickly repaired (beacuse Greater Restoration has a high casting time) or
2) Kill because they are multi-metamagiked (both of these are not good solutions)
So the only chance of Wizards is to bet on a single shot.
b) Being Charmed is not funny! (Especially for your party... But you can have a good time bashing your "friends"!)
c) Being put out of combat (strong paralysis, teleport somewhere else etc.) is still not very funny

"Epic Literature" isn't full of Resurrections... When a person dies he is dead, and if you want to resurrect him you have to make a big quest. In Epic Dnd to resurrect a person you have to pay 5000gp to your cleric! To balance this you die quite often if your master uses the CR suggested in the book! I'm for the "very rare resurrection".
There is a reason because in DnD there are HPs... A single lucky shot shouldn't kill you. But Save or Die spells are much more like "real life games" where a shot can kill anyone. And the paradox is that this happens especially at higher levels, because save or die spells are high level spells! So it's easyer that a very strong hero will fall with a single shot than a weaker hero (5th-10th level) will! This isn't DnD. This is RoleMaster!



> > Sample CR of monsters: you should modify the small Headings (or remove them) (Arrowhawk, barghest, celestial...), or put all the non classified monsters under "Various" (no, a Titan is not a Slaad and a Ha-Naga is not a Golem!) and you forgot two headings in the Epic Monsters... Sirrush and Slaad. And Worm that walks should be capitalized.
> 
> 
> 
> I only have so many lines on a page.



Yes, but you can always move a little to the left/to the right the headings!


----------



## seasong (Apr 10, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> This is your first mistake.  Constitution is almost ALWAYS the second highest stat.  Anything else is pretty stupid.



Hey Anubis, thanks for defending my example . Although the word "stupid" is too harsh for the situation - DEX can be useful, just not necessarily in this context.

I've found that wizards tend to pick CON or CHA, myself - CHA is the "forward thinking" wizard, however, who plans on getting hisself a meat shield cohort at 6th.







> I don't know ANYONE who takes Spell Focus (enchantment), because Spell Focus (evocation), Spell Focus (transmutation), and Spell Focus (necromancy) serve the wizard much better.  Unless he is an Enchanter, which isn't the common scenario.



Spell focus (abjuration) is also pretty suck, unless you house rule it to apply to dispel checks.







> I would disagree, seeing as I've never known a wizard to carry a weapon he can't use just on the off-chance he'll have to be by himself and coup de grace.  Also, the Sorcerer is quite unlikely to take Shield, as it is a utility defense spell and MOST Sorcerers are splat mages.



Sorry, should clarify - that's a wizard we're talking about. And I've known 'em to carry whatever their STR will allow. A spear is pretty light weight, and if the wizard/sorc knows _sleep_, chances are he's planning to use it.


----------



## xanatos (Apr 10, 2003)

> > Originally posted by xanatos
> > Oh... Yes... Do you think you will publish it before or after 3.5?
> 
> 
> ...



Will you post a patch for the PDF after the revision? (like what the people at Malhavoc press have done)


----------



## Anubis (Apr 10, 2003)

seasong said:
			
		

> *
> 57.25% of the time. Where are you people getting your initiative calculations? I mean, it was at least close this time..
> *




Well, for me, since it was +5 to +1, I calculated the chances of the Sorcerer rolling over 5 multiplied by the chances of the hobgoblins rolling under 15.

I take it you know an actual math formula for the chances of initiative?  Care to share?


----------



## seasong (Apr 10, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> Well, for me, since it was +5 to +1, I calculated the chances of the Sorcerer rolling over 5 multiplied by the chances of the hobgoblins rolling under 15.
> 
> I take it you know an actual math formula for the chances of initiative?  Care to share?



The easy way is to use a spreadsheet: have a column of 1, 2, 3, etc., and a column of 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, etc. Use an IF() function to see if one column is sufficiently higher than the other to win, and it returns a '1' if it is, '0' if it isn't. Divide the sum of the IF() functions by 400, and you've got it. You could use math, too, but this method assures accuracy - if you've got every possible roll on the spreadsheet, and you count them, you get the correct results. I did the same thing for 1d8x3 damage versus the Fort save DC.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Apr 10, 2003)

'Lo Upper Krust!

I finally had a chance to reveiw version three of the appendixes.

And frankly, I'm impressed!

The new sub heading font is an easy read.

In fact the whole thing seems to be cleaned up and more....readable.

The Design Parameters section will be very useful, although most of it is common sense.  

The revised magic items is again common sense. (I've been using similar rules for awhile)

The revised feats was something I suspected you were putting in this version and it is pretty good. But, a question, why remove Improved Metamagic?  Was it overpowered? I think so.

Anyways much kudos on a job well done.  

Well see ya later.
Keep up the good work.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 11, 2003)

Oh my. I can see the mutual admiration society between Anubis and Seasong has already begun!



Let’s take some of the steam out of that society shall we?

-----

Anubis first.

First of all, my standard array is taken directly from Mialee. So I can’t take credit for it. Moreover, Dexterity is more important than Constitution for a wizard. Let’s see now ... do I plan to take damage as a wizard (when my Hit Die is a d4) or do I plan on not getting hit in the first place. Hm. Tough choice. By your reasoning, I should play my 1st level wizard as a meat sponge. Yeah, that makes sense.



Toughness and Combat Casting? Talk about short sighted planning. Any wizard with a half a brain is going to take just as many defensive spells (to prevent damage) as offensive spells (to inflict damage) and any wizard worth their salt is going to max out their Concentration ranks. Moreover, taking a 5 foot step back before casting negates the need for a Concentration saving throw more often than not.

Taking Spell Focus (enchantment) is a fine choice. It follows in the footsteps of many a mind controller. A perfectly viable concept for any wizard.

Sorcerers who take the splat route would be hugely foolish to take more than a small handful of offensive spells. Intelligent sorcerers leave plenty of room for neck-saving spells like _shield_. Please, if you are going to quote popular opinion, at least choose the opinions that make sense.

Improved Initiative is no less standard for wizards than it is for rogues who want to get their Sneak Attack in first. Reacting first is crucial for wizards trying to getting off that defensive spell before combat begins. Fighters? I haven’t met a fighter yet who took Improved Initiative at 1st or 2nd level. They’re usually too busy trying to qualify for a prestige class.

As debates go, I’ve lost nothing. You have so far affirmed very little or nothing.

Most combat begins within 30 feet? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You are attempting to pigeon hole something that cannot be quantified. Encounters can start at many different ranges; 30 feet is only advantageous for melee characters. Non-melee characters are going to widen that distance every time.
Perspective starts with seeing the big picture Anubis. Start there.

-----

Seasong.

This wizard is tweaked for charming and mind control. Not simply casting _sleep_. As wizards go, he will be quite formidable in that capacity at both high and low levels. Don’t judge a school by the number of spells in it. Those enchantment spells are game-turners. How you can rationalize that a charm/mind controlling wizard will not help a party is beyond me. There is more than one way to defeat your enemies. It just takes a little imagination. Greater Spell Focus (enchantment) would be another choice.

Not sure why your hobgoblin has a Strength bonus with his longsword. Typical hobgoblin Strength is 11.

As per Improved Initiative, see above. Improved Initiative makes more sense for wizards than it does for fighters. Going first is not as important to fighters, precisely because they can usually soak up the damage of whatever creature reacts first; wizards cannot, even with (of all wasteful feats) Toughness. So feel free to tweak your standard hobgoblins with it. I’ll be keeping Improved Initiative.

Again, Improved Initiative helps the wizard get off their defensive spell. Hardly the “specialized situation” you claim it to be.

You keep speaking of attacks of opportunity like they happen all the time. Once again, see the above 5-foot step rule. This will negate attacks of opportunity in most cases.

As per _shield_, it will be cast any time the wizard wins Initiative (ambush or no). Like I said, get those defensive spells off first. It’s right there in my example, so I’m not sure why you’re asking.

You say an ambush is worth less ECL? Well if you had said that sooner, I would have agreed immediately. Remember, this debate is predicated on 2400XP being too much for a single arcane spellcaster defeating two 2nd fighter hobgoblins.

My chances of doing average damage twice is ½ that of doing it the first time? Not sure where you got that math from. Average damage is average damage (every time). Even so, _shield_ is already up and running. A wizard behind a _shield_ spell stands a much greater chance of defeating an injured hobgoblin or two. That’s when they pull out their scribed scrolls...


----------



## S'mon (Apr 11, 2003)

seasong said:
			
		

> *
> Hobgoblin Fighter-2
> HP 13 (2d10 avg, +1 CON per HD)
> Fort +4 (+3 class, +1 CON)
> ...




This hobgoblin is not CR 2 - it's about as tough as a weakish PC Fighter-1 and looks like a typical CR1 monster to me - eg the Monster Manual gnoll warrior-1, or the DMG's elite Fighter-1.  I agree with Anubis that if you want a CR2 hobgoblin fighter - ie that would be a moderate challenge for 4 level 2 PCs - you need to use something like the DMG's NPC stats, although you could probably leave out some of the gear.


----------



## Alzrius (Apr 11, 2003)

Hi U_K!

Quick question: am I misreading the document (I am looking at version 3), or is there really nothing to increase the CR of creatures based on adding divine abilities? I'm guessing this to be due to that old saying of "gods shouldn't just be monsters", yes? But even so, having that would be helpful. Is it not in there because that'd reveal too much of the rest of the book...or am I just misreading it, and it is in there? I know its not due to you wanting to wait for the ELH and D&Dg to be released, since epic monsters are mentioned in there. 

Thanks!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 11, 2003)

Hi xanatos mate! 



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Yes, but remember that by changing the Heal and Harm you are creating a hole. There wasn't any Single Target Healing Spell at 7th, 8th and 9th level because Heal was absolute. But if Heal is not absolute, then there is the need for better Healing (especially when a PC can have 300/400 hp!).*




Obviously I have better healing spells in the Immortals Handbook but they are likely to be found in the Magic Chapter of the book rather than an appendices for revised spells...I may even remove Mass Harm from the appendices when the time comes.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *And then there is the Heal = Cure. If a single Heal doesn't completly heal a player, then he will need multiple heal, and the old problem "the cleric has to prepare only healing spells" will return (Cure Critical Wounds is quite useless at epic levels!)*




Heal and Harm can now also be fully affected with Metamagic remember.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Dragons are typical example (they have a high damaging breath weapon.*




Breath Weapon is already handled in both the CR factors and Design Parameters.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *And then, if you want to create a complete method to calculate CR you have to consider even bad monster writer! There are new "official" monsters every month (Dungeon+Dragon+Wizard's web), plus tons of "fans created". Designing monsters is an art, calculating CR should be more a science than an art!*




Of course but a few guidelines never hurt anyone.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Genius Loci? An Enslave with a DC of 53 and an half-CR of 27.
> Hagunemnon (half-DC of 24) specials attacks based on Cha are 10 + 22 (half HD) + 12 = DC 44 and their Deva Critical DC is 10+16(or 17)+21(or 22)=DC 47
> Hunefer (half CR = 25, with your rules for Dev. Critical): Dev. Critical DC = 10 + 12 (or 13... I always forget the rounding rules)+ 18 = DC 40
> Leshay (half CR 25): Gaze Charm DC 53!
> Shadow of the Void (half CR 28): DC of 37 or lose 6 perm Con, and save every round for 6 more rounds, for every hit!*




All these abilities are properly rated and integrated into their revised Challenge Ratings on page 12 of the CR/EL document.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *I think they are intrinsic of the monster. A flying breathing Dragon is a true dragon.*




Both flight and breath weaponry is accounted for.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *A walking dragon is a pet!
> Especially at high levels players will have abilities to become immune to some attacks. A monster that has many different attacks can balance this (but he will lose rounds to discover the right attack). An example of this: a monster that can cast fireboll, lightening bolt, magic missile, an ice spell and a sonic spell isn't so much stronger than a monster that can cast only fireball, unless the party is immune to fire (in SAS (Silver Age Sentinel) to solve this you pay full cost only for the most powerful attack, and you pay a fixed price for each other less powerful attack (because with secondary attacks you are paying only for flexibility, not for raw power)*




This is something I am still considering.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *a) Epic DnD is full of Save Or Die spells! Very full... No... Wait... Fuller!  This is probably because damage dealing spells at epic levels:
> 1) Su#k (the number of dices of damage go up slower than the combined HD and Con of monsters) (and I can even prove this... Look at Epic monsters... Their designers discovered that it was useless to give them 20d6 of breath weapon... So they gave them 2d4 of perm Con Drain... at 30 Level it's 60 hp with no save that can't be quickly repaired (beacuse Greater Restoration has a high casting time) or
> 2) Kill because they are multi-metamagiked (both of these are not good solutions)
> So the only chance of Wizards is to bet on a single shot.
> ...




Okay well I think you obviously have some issues with D&D itself, rather than with my system.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *There is a reason because in DnD there are HPs... A single lucky shot shouldn't kill you. But Save or Die spells are much more like "real life games" where a shot can kill anyone. And the paradox is that this happens especially at higher levels, because save or die spells are high level spells! So it's easyer that a very strong hero will fall with a single shot than a weaker hero (5th-10th level) will! This isn't DnD. This is RoleMaster!*




I empathise with what you are saying but there is simply no way for me to change this aspect of the game without making making an enormous amount of changes to the core rules effectively creating 4th Edition.



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Yes, but you can always move a little to the left/to the right the headings!  *


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 11, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				xanatos said:
			
		

> *Will you post a patch for the PDF after the revision? (like what the people at Malhavoc press have done) *




If the changes are significant, then yes.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 11, 2003)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *'Lo Upper Krust!*




Hey Dark Wolf mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *I finally had a chance to reveiw version three of the appendixes.
> 
> And frankly, I'm impressed!*








			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *The new sub heading font is an easy read.
> 
> In fact the whole thing seems to be cleaned up and more....readable.*




Glad you like it.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *The Design Parameters section will be very useful, although most of it is common sense. *




Indeed.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *The revised magic items is again common sense. (I've been using similar rules for awhile).*




Glad you like them.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *The revised feats was something I suspected you were putting in this version and it is pretty good. But, a question, why remove Improved Metamagic?  Was it overpowered? I think so.*




It really leads to problems down the road when you start stacking effects. Personally I would allow all Meta-magic to stack provided you can meet the spell level.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Anyways much kudos on a job well done. *




Appreciate the support mate, and thanks for the feedback. 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Well see ya later.
> 
> Keep up the good work. *




Y'all come back now, y'hear!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 11, 2003)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Hi U_K!*




Hi Alzrius mate! 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Quick question: am I misreading the document (I am looking at version 3), or is there really nothing to increase the CR of creatures based on adding divine abilities?*




Thats because (as the sidebar on page 6 attests) that all Immortals Templates are determined in Chapters 2: Divinity and Three: Portfolios. Immortal Abilities are determined in Chapter 4: Powers.

All my templates and abilities are already rated.

Although I am having some difficulty with the abilities because I created far too many; outlining the variants is swelling the numbers to well over 400, so I am currently trying to figure out a way to keep that in check.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *I'm guessing this to be due to that old saying of "gods shouldn't just be monsters", yes?*




Nope.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *But even so, having that would be helpful. Is it not in there because that'd reveal too much of the rest of the book.*




Something like that.



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *...or am I just misreading it, and it is in there? I know its not due to you wanting to wait for the ELH and D&Dg to be released, since epic monsters are mentioned in there.*




...well technically the CR/EL pdf is only a playtest document, otherwise refering to the ELH monsters would probably be breaking copyright laws or somesuch...*whistles to self* 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> *Thanks! *




Anytime mate!


----------



## seasong (Apr 11, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> Oh my. I can see the mutual admiration society between Anubis and Seasong has already begun!



I am sorry if you feel we are picking on you. It is the burden of a minority opinion, whether wrong OR right. I think you're mostly wrong, but then, I would . And we were in disagreement until you came along. Thank you for helping us... find each other. 

First, a few difficulties:







> You keep speaking of attacks of opportunity like they happen all the time. Once again, see the above 5-foot step rule. This will negate attacks of opportunity in most cases.



You are correct. This does not significantly alter your chance of surviving a fight with 1-2 awake hobgoblins after your spells run out, but it is true that you might possibly survive, and that spell casting with 5 ft steps will prevent AoOs during the first rounds when you HAVE spells.







> As per _shield_, it will be cast any time the wizard wins Initiative (ambush or no). Like I said, get those defensive spells off first. It’s right there in my example, so I’m not sure why you’re asking.



I'll get back to this. Suffice it to say here that... sometimes I agree with you, and sometimes I disagree. In the scenario you propose, I think _shield_ is a poor choice (see further below).







> You say an ambush is worth less ECL? Well if you had said that sooner, I would have agreed immediately. Remember, this debate is predicated on 2400XP being too much for a single arcane spellcaster defeating two 2nd fighter hobgoblins.



It's been said elsewhere. I was talking about a typical situation. An ambush is not a typical situation; neither is starting at 100 ft. Either one would provide a reduced EL, just like it would provide a reduced CR in the core rules. This is common sense.

However, after playing it out, I think it might, _at worst_ be a -1 EL. Those hobgoblins are damned hard to beat.







> My chances of doing average damage twice is ½ that of doing it the first time?



No. You have a 50% chance of doing it the first time, and a 50% chance of doing it the second time. You only have a 25% chance of doing it twice in a row, and if even one wakes up, you are most likely hosed.



> This wizard is tweaked for charming and mind control.



No he isn't. He's not optimized at all. Granted, neither was my original Twink . But you _dropped your INT score_, and for a wizard, that's like cutting off his legs, particularly for a save-or-sleep Twink.

For example, if I drop your DEX and WIS to 10, and raise INT to 18, he loses 0.5% chance of success in _this one situation_ (note: that moves him from 19.7% to 19.2%), but gains an overall +2 to spell DC, which will help him in more general situations. Furthermore, even for this one situation, I can twink his butt out way more than you have, using a high INT and STR. An optimized _sleep_ + _coup de grace_ build would look like this:

STR 14, DEX 10, CON 8, INT 18, WIS 8, CHA 8

Wizard: Specialist, enchantment (opposed: conjuration)
Feats: Improved Initiative*, Spell Focus (Enchantment)
Spells: Shield, Sleep (INT bonus), Sleep (specialist)
Spear 1d8+2 (x3)

* Note: I have rethunk my analysis of the wizard and improved initiative, and gone through the numbers, and it DOES help a wizard who is by himself a massive amount... enough to be considered a "must have" if the wizard is likely to be by himself. A smart wizard, of course, will never ever ever be by himself, but Twink's already there, so we might as well give him the benefit of the doubt.

Chance of success at 10-30 ft: 24.4%
That's a +5% gain over your stats. Do you still think DEX is important to a wizard?

That's as high as I can make it go. I can't pump STR any more, and since I already _coup de grace_ 151 times out of 160, any further bonuses to damage are negligible compared to the loss of DEX.

I went with your feats because for an enchanter specialist who expects to be alone, they are invaluable .

You'll notice that I targetted the % effects that had the highest impact on his final chances; Improved Initiative, the damage roll on the spear, and the Spell DC. While initiative _does_ impact the overall chances, a +2 or +4 to DEX is a marginal impact compared to the benefit gained from +2 or +4 to STR or INT.

Now, with that out of the way, he _still_ has a 3 in 4 chance of being meat, under my original scenario and tactics.

Now, your proposed scenario and tactics:
1. Start at 100 ft.
2. Twink's plan: win initiative, cast shield, cast sleep, OR lose initiative, cast sleep.
3. Hobgoblin's plan: Spread out to avoid wizard group shots*. Kill wizard.

We will use your Twink to save time arguing . However, we will make one change to him: make him an enchanter specialist, so that he has one extra _sleep_ spell. You'll see why soon enough.

* Yeah, I know you might argue this with me; how do they know he's going to use area effect spells? My answer is thus: _he's a wizard_. Even if they don't know about _sleep_, spreading out reduces the impact of many, many spells such as _magic missile_ and _fireball_.

Note: Another good reason for 30 ft is because we can calculate the overall probability a LOT easier. At 100 ft, it becomes a very, very complex situation.

1. Twink attempts to win Initiative: 52.5% chance of success.

If he wins Initiative:
2. Casts _shield_.
3. Hobgoblin 1 moves 120 ft to be on opposite side of Twink.
4. Twink gets an AoO, but has no weapon at hand to use (hands must be free to cast). Even if he did, he has a negligible chance of critting and killing the hobgoblin.
5. Hobgoblin 1 does not get an attack.
6. Hobgoblin 2 moves 30 ft, then throws a javelin. At 70 ft, he has a -4 to his attack.
- Attack -2 vs AC 19
- 1.66% chance of killing Twink outright.
- 3.33% chance of doing 4 hp or less.
7. Twink steps 5 ft towards HG 2. No AoO.
8. 
- As a free action, Twink changes the _shield_'s direction to HG1.
- Twink casts _sleep_ on HG 1.
9. HG1 makes a Will save against DC 15: 70% chance of succumbing.
10.
- If HG1 does not succumb, he steps 5 ft to Twink. No AoO.
- - Attack +3 vs AC 19
- - 12.5% chance of killing Twink outright.
- - 12.5% chance of doing 4 hp or less.
11. HG2 moves 30 ft closer (40 ft) and readies an attack...

If HG1 succumbed, HG2 will throw his javelin at HG1 this round (having seen the shield in action), and take the -4 to do stunning damage (+4 prone, +4 pinned/not moving, -2 range) for a total chance to hit of +4 vs AC 14 (50% chance of waking HG1). He will then continue to stay at distance.

If HG1 did not succumb, HG2 will throw his javelin at Twink, and maintain his distance. Note that Twink is no longer protected by the _shield_ against HG2.

Twink has one _sleep_ spell left. If HG1 did not succumb, or HG2 succeeded in waking HG1 up, he should save it until they are both together, and in the meantime, run. If HG1 did succumb and HG2 failed to wake him (net 35% chance of that succession of events), he can try to cast _sleep_ on HG2 and pray.

These hobgoblins were not tweaked out (if they were, I'd have gone with some throwing feats for HG2).

Total chance with throwing _shield_ first: 70% for HG1, 50% that HG1 is not woken up, 70% for HG2 = 24.5% chance that everyone goes to sleep like good little monsters, _not counting initiative or chance of taking a total of 5 hp from all attacks_.

If Twink loses initiative, his chances are the same _except_ that the hobgoblins have a better chance of hitting him, thanks to the lack of a _shield_ spell, and once HG1 is within range, he is most likely going to die pretty soon.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 11, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Indeed, when you are defining them on a case by case basis. *




Actually, I tend to do that. One of my games has an "exotic twist" in that the two players have templates, which in come aspects, are like a toned down Paragon template. But, one thing I noticed immediately is that the paragon template has less and less of an impact on CR/ECL as the base creature advances in levels/monster hit die. So, I keep an eye one it. Whenever they level, I elvaluate the impact of the template on their character and adjust their ECL if needed. I do this for two reasons; 1) I like to be aware where things begin to break down so that I can fix them before disaster occurs, and 2) it helps me tremendously to know what their actual CR is.

Your system serves perfectly for this, so thanks. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *No the problem was there was no way I could predict what class level a deity would take. *




Right. So I guess the choices are 1) track the ECL changes with each level, i.e. its a pain in the rear, or 2) just pick an average and roll with it.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *The pdfs or the Print Version?
> 
> All these things are fairly standard priced (typically by page count) these days are they not? *




Both, actually. I do half of my prepwork and designing with a book in front of me and the other half completely electronically, so its advantageous for me to have both.

Yes, most books pretty much follow a standard pricing method, but I can't remember what your page count was lookin' like recently. Are you getting near 320?


----------



## Anubis (Apr 11, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Oh my. I can see the mutual admiration society between Anubis and Seasong has already begun!
> 
> 
> ...




Even with a little more Dexterity, the Wizard is still gonna get hit.  Most Wizards shoose to add 5 to their hp at Level 1 by taking Toughness.  Dexterity is never more important than Constitution.  NEVER.  The only reason Mialee's Dexterity is higher than her Constituion is because SHE'S AN ELF.  Ya' know, Dex +2 Con -2?

Thus your first point has been killed.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Toughness and Combat Casting? Talk about short sighted planning. Any wizard with a half a brain is going to take just as many defensive spells (to prevent damage) as offensive spells (to inflict damage) and any wizard worth their salt is going to max out their Concentration ranks. Moreover, taking a 5 foot step back before casting negates the need for a Concentration saving throw more often than not.
> *




Wizard yes, Sorcerer no.  No Sorcerer will take Mage Armor, and Shield is likely not going to be one of the Level 1 spells chosen.  Also, such a thinker will not even take Sleep in the first place if it's a Sorcerer, because that spell loses ALL power by Level 5.  The Wizard should indeed have both spells, though, although I haven't seen a single Wizard not memorize a Magic Missile at any level.

Thus your second point is killed.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Taking Spell Focus (enchantment) is a fine choice. It follows in the footsteps of many a mind controller. A perfectly viable concept for any wizard.
> *




Viable perhaps, but not common.  To judge this, we can only use a COMMON situation.  A Wizard is almost NEVER going to pick this route.  Only an Enchanter would.  The Enchantment spells are overly weak for hte most part.  Let's not forget that out of all gamers, I would bet only less than 5% actually pick this route.  We're talking about COMMON situations, remember?

Thus your third point is killed.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Sorcerers who take the splat route would be hugely foolish to take more than a small handful of offensive spells. Intelligent sorcerers leave plenty of room for neck-saving spells like shield. Please, if you are going to quote popular opinion, at least choose the opinions that make sense.
> *




It's still not likely to be one of the first spells choseb.  I commonly see Magic Missile and Sleep or Magic Missile and either Burning Hands, Shocking Grasp, or Chill Touch.

Thus your fourth point is killed.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Improved Initiative is no less standard for wizards than it is for rogues who want to get their Sneak Attack in first. Reacting first is crucial for wizards trying to getting off that defensive spell before combat begins. Fighters? I haven’t met a fighter yet who took Improved Initiative at 1st or 2nd level. They’re usually too busy trying to qualify for a prestige class.
> *




Not gaming long, eh?  I would say fighter types pick Improved Initiative as an early spell over 70% of the time.  I have NEVER (that would be 0%) seen a Wizard or Sorcerer take it at Level 1.  90% of the time they do take it at Level 3, but never at Level 1.

Thus your fifth point is killed.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> As debates go, I’ve lost nothing. You have so far affirmed very little or nothing.
> *




I've affirmed everything.  You used a specialized situation that is NOT common.  To judge accuracy, you must use common factors.  Things that are most likely.  I have done so and you have not.  I used the NPC stats out of the DMG for all involved parties.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Most combat begins within 30 feet? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You are attempting to pigeon hole something that cannot be quantified. Encounters can start at many different ranges; 30 feet is only advantageous for melee characters. Non-melee characters are going to widen that distance every time.
> Perspective starts with seeing the big picture Anubis. Start there.
> *




A STRONG majority of combat takes place in dungeons.  Dungeon combat, on average, starts at 30 feet, within melee range within one round.  This is a fact, not a guess.  30 feet is most common, thus it is what must be used.

As for perspective, I have killed each and every one of your points in turn.  You can get some perspective when you start using COMMON and LIKELY situations.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> -----
> 
> Seasong.
> ...




Game-turners?  Not likely.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Not sure why your hobgoblin has a Strength bonus with his longsword. Typical hobgoblin Strength is 11.
> *




We're talking about Level 2 Fighter hobgoblins, not common hobgoblins.  These LEVEL 2 FIGHTER hobgoblins have 15 Strength, as per the DMG.  See pages 52-53.  don't forget to modify things based on page 58, meaning Dex +2, Con +2, Move Silently +4.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> As per Improved Initiative, see above. Improved Initiative makes more sense for wizards than it does for fighters. Going first is not as important to fighters, precisely because they can usually soak up the damage of whatever creature reacts first; wizards cannot, even with (of all wasteful feats) Toughness. So feel free to tweak your standard hobgoblins with it. I’ll be keeping Improved Initiative.
> *




Again, we're talking about LEVEL 2 FIGHTER hobgoblins, not standard hobgoblins.  If we are talking standard hobgoblins, then by the system, they are only CR 1.  We are talking about LEVEL @ FIGHTER hobgoblins, however, and they thus have the stats as per the DMG.  This includes Improved Initiative.  That means CR 2.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Again, Improved Initiative helps the wizard get off their defensive spell. Hardly the “specialized situation” you claim it to be.
> *




Wrong again.  Like I said, Improved Iniative is RARELY taken at Level 1 by Wizards and Sorcerers.  I have been a DM long enough to know such things.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> You keep speaking of attacks of opportunity like they happen all the time. Once again, see the above 5-foot step rule. This will negate attacks of opportunity in most cases.
> 
> As per shield, it will be cast any time the wizard wins Initiative (ambush or no). Like I said, get those defensive spells off first. It’s right there in my example, so I’m not sure why you’re asking.
> ...




Actually, it'll be MUCH more than 2400 XP.  In actuality, this is PEL -2 vs. EL 7.  The actual award will be 14400.  Again, remember the Wizard/Sorcerer in COMMON situations will have only a 1-3% chance of survival.  You wanna roll 1d100 for me?  If you roll 1-3, you get 14,400 XP.  Anything else you die, permanently.  That is about the same as this scenario.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> My chances of doing average damage twice is ½ that of doing it the first time? Not sure where you got that math from. Average damage is average damage (every time). Even so, shield is already up and running. A wizard behind a shield spell stands a much greater chance of defeating an injured hobgoblin or two. That’s when they pull out their scribed scrolls...
> *




Pretty bad with statistics are you?  The chances of you doing average damage once is 50%.  Doing it twice is 50%*50%, or 25%.

Anyway, you have lost.  Give it up.


----------



## seasong (Apr 11, 2003)

Erg. I just realized I'm hijacking at this point .

I mean, it's important to establish the EL XP values, but I've spent waaay too much time on wizards vs hobgoblins, just to establish that that one, single scenario is balanced regarding XP given for beating them.

It holds up. Heck, it holds up _well_.

In situations where it _doesn't_ hold up, you use situational modifiers... and I've come to think that +/- 1 EL if the wizard/uberarcher starts at a moderate range (situation favors one side over the other) is just fine.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 11, 2003)

Upper_Krust,

Got yet another question for you. Checking out the spell-like abilities, I noticed that fireball cast as a 6th level sorcerer at will would add +0.045 to the CR/ECL. I'm curious; is there an additional ECL modifier for PCs, like there is for Fast Healing and Regeneration? A lot of people tote that fireball at will is much more powerful on a PC than it is on a monster, mostly because the monster won't get to use it that often (i.e., only in combat). Personally, I don't fully subscribe to that argument (since only abusive players or evil characters would hurl fireballs around outside of combat anyway), but I was curious as to your standpoint.


----------



## seasong (Apr 11, 2003)

Under most circumstances, _fireball_ at will is functionally identical to _fireball_ 4-5 times as a sorcerer. The only difference is that the sorcerer can choose to put something else in that slot, and the at will user is still good for the next fight.

Now, against an army of low-level enemies, with a circle of your own warriors to protect you, that _fireball_ at will becomes immensely more useful... because you can do in a lot more of the enemy army than the sorcerer can, regardless of what spells he picks. But I don't think Upper Krust's system is really designed for mass combat, the same as the original CR system isn't.

Mass combat changes everything, after all .


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Apr 11, 2003)

Anubis I'm sorry to say your wrong!



> I would say fighter types pick Improved Initiative as an early spell over 70% of the time.




Fighter types never take the spell Improved Initiative, cause there isn't one!
Your right on everything else though


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 11, 2003)

Hi kreynolds mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Actually, I tend to do that. One of my games has an "exotic twist" in that the two players have templates, which in come aspects, are like a toned down Paragon template.
> 
> But, one thing I noticed immediately is that the paragon template has less and less of an impact on CR/ECL as the base creature advances in levels/monster hit die. So, I keep an eye one it. *




The relationship between CR and EL I advocate handles this sort of thing perfectly.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Whenever they level, I evaluate the impact of the template on their character and adjust their ECL if needed. I do this for two reasons; 1) I like to be aware where things begin to break down so that I can fix them before disaster occurs, and 2) it helps me tremendously to know what their actual CR is.
> 
> Your system serves perfectly for this, so thanks. *




Glad I could help. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Right. So I guess the choices are 1) track the ECL changes with each level, i.e. its a pain in the rear, or 2) just pick an average and roll with it.*




Exactly.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Both, actually. I do half of my prepwork and designing with a book in front of me and the other half completely electronically, so its advantageous for me to have both.
> 
> Yes, most books pretty much follow a standard pricing method, but I can't remember what your page count was lookin' like recently. Are you getting near 320? *




Maybe 336.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 11, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust,*




Hello again mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Got yet another question for you.*




Fire away.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Checking out the spell-like abilities, I noticed that fireball cast as a 6th level sorcerer at will would add +0.045 to the CR/ECL. I'm curious; is there an additional ECL modifier for PCs, like there is for Fast Healing and Regeneration? A lot of people tote that fireball at will is much more powerful on a PC than it is on a monster, mostly because the monster won't get to use it that often (i.e., only in combat). Personally, I don't fully subscribe to that argument (since only abusive players or evil characters would hurl fireballs around outside of combat anyway), but I was curious as to your standpoint. *




You could add +0.2 ECL per highest spell level. That was something I previously had in as both a CR and ECL modifier, but when I removed it from CR I also (perhaps mistakenly?) removed it from ECL too.


----------



## Knight Otu (Apr 11, 2003)

Finally managed to download version 3.  (So don't go and put up version 4 anytime soon. )

I like what I see for the most part.

Should Ability Scores be taken into account for ECL, as you mentioned before?

How should abilities like a drow's SR (the most common ability that scales with level, uncapped) that scale with level be calculated?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 11, 2003)

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Finally managed to download version 3.  (So don't go and put up version 4 anytime soon. ) *




No I doubt there will be a version 4...except in the IH. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I like what I see for the most part.*




Glad to hear it! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Should Ability Scores be taken into account for ECL, as you mentioned before?*




Any bonus above and beyond the 3d6 used to roll stats should be factored, so, yes.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *How should abilities like a drow's SR (the most common ability that scales with level, uncapped) that scale with level be calculated? *




Simply Rate the drow at +0.1/Level (extra) because of their spell resistance.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 11, 2003)

Howdy Seasong.

I have since read your subsequent post. If you wish to leave it at that, I understand. Otherwise, I submit the following insights.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> An ambush is not a typical situation; neither is starting at 100 ft.



We could not disagree more.





seasong [/i]He's not optimized at all. Granted said:


> *Game-turners?  Not likely.*



Hehe. Your best argument yet! But one that unfortunately speaks without experience. It’s not all _fireballs_ and _lightning bolts_ after all.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *We're talking about Level 2 Fighter hobgoblins, not common hobgoblins. These LEVEL 2 FIGHTER hobgoblins have 15 Strength, as per the DMG. See pages 52-53. don't forget to modify things based on page 58, meaning Dex +2, Con +2, Move Silently +4.*



Those are examples Anubis. To be used or not, at DM discretion. They do not represent “the rule”. This combat example has so far used the standard hobgoblin with 2nd level fighter progression. You have officially started grasping at straws.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Actually, it'll be MUCH more than 2400 XP. In actuality, this is PEL -2 vs. EL 7. The actual award will be 14400. Again, remember the Wizard/Sorcerer in COMMON situations will have only a 1-3% chance of survival. You wanna roll 1d100 for me? If you roll 1-3, you get 14,400 XP. *



Completely unrelated (mostly because your XP values are 10 degrees removed from reality) but if I had a DM that gave me 14,400 XP for a single random dice role, I would fire them.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for perspective, I have killed each and every one of your points in turn.
> *



Do you always prematurely pat yourself on the back this quickly?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Anyway, you have lost. Give it up.
> *



Always a sign of desperation when a debater needs to proclaim their own success … especially when their arguments are so weak.

Next time you respond to me (and you will) think about your points a little more before hitting the reply button. It will do everybody a world of good.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 11, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *You could add +0.2 ECL per highest spell level. That was something I previously had in as both a CR and ECL modifier, but when I removed it from CR I also (perhaps mistakenly?) removed it from ECL too. *




Me again! 

When you say "add +0.2 ECL per highest spell level, do you mean that if the highest spell level is 3rd, add +0.6? Or, do you mean that if the creature has two 2nd-level spell-like abilities and one 3rd-level spell-like ability, add +0.2 for the one 3rd-level spell-like ability?

Also, what if the spell-like ability, say a fireball by a 6th level sorcerer, can only be used so many times per day, say three times? Should the +0.2 still apply? Or is that only for "at will" abilities?


----------



## seasong (Apr 11, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> I have since read your subsequent post. If you wish to leave it at that, I understand. Otherwise, I submit the following insights.



Also known as, "I get the last word, hahaha!" . That's fine. I can even agree that when a character controls every factor of a combat, they can outperform their normal CR. So now the question is, so what? Upper Krust's rules handle this as a situational modifier. Where is the problem?







> My original objection to 2400 XP was for a 1st level wizard who gets the drop on my two 2nd level fighter hobgoblins.



Ah, something on topic! If he gets the drop at 30 ft, he's earned it. If he gets the drop at 100 ft, use a situational modifier to EL. If he gets the drop because he _controls every factor of the combat_, it's arguable that he should get a tiny fraction of the XP, if any. This is in the rules, both core and Upper Krust's.

What, exactly, are you objecting to?







> Time to flesh out Twink a bit more.



I thought you were just going to give a few insights? Naw, I guess not. I'll leave the rest of your post alone - it's off topic at this point, although I'm sure the arguments are fascinating. Perhaps you could start another thread? I would even be willing to continue to debate the specifics with you there.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 11, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Me again! *




Hello mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *When you say "add +0.2 ECL per highest spell level, do you mean that if the highest spell level is 3rd, add +0.6?*




Yes.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Or, do you mean that if the creature has two 2nd-level spell-like abilities and one 3rd-level spell-like ability, add +0.2 for the one 3rd-level spell-like ability?*




No.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Also, what if the spell-like ability, say a fireball by a 6th level sorcerer, can only be used so many times per day, say three times? Should the +0.2 still apply? Or is that only for "at will" abilities? *




You still calculate all Spell-like Abilities as described in the pdf...

...then you add +0.2 x highest spell level (total).


----------



## -Eä- (Apr 12, 2003)

*Average damage and statistics, charming and so on...*

As for average damage: You are wrong, Anubis and Seasong: The probability for getting average damage within a given range increases for every time you roll:

If you say that you need 2*p, where p is the average for one spell, or more as a sum, the probability is greater than 0.25, in fact 0.50 as Sonofapreacherman pointed out ( I think) ,but if you say you need p or greater on each of the rolls you are correct. I would guess that you would need 20 or more as a sum. Then again, if you need the a sum one less than the average, the probability is greater than 0.5, and it's quite easy to calculate those probabilities.



As for the enchantment path:

There are many wizards that takes Spell Focus:Enchantment. Indeed, I would say it's more valuable than Spell Focus: Evocation (though less valuable than SPell Focus: Transmutation), and claiming that this is only for specialised wizards is not valid: It's just a matter of opinion.

Granted: Giving int. the hose isn't something a wizard would do, but in a randomised world, sometimes you encounter wizards with higher dex than int, though that wizard isn't particularily likely to be a PC.

(In general, I agree with that con is the next most important stat for wizard: Dex is easily obtained from polymorphing and so on. HP from con isn't obtained as easily)

As for Charming spells: I play an Enchanter in a campaign with 16 other players, and while being utterly ineffective against undead, shadows and the like, the character's charm spells are EXTREMELY effective vs. other monsters, particularily combined with Enervation. Indeed, using charm spells, you mey gain more than a mere kill when using them properly!


I don't know why I wrote this, I just did when I was about to get to bed.


----------



## seasong (Apr 12, 2003)

*Re: Average damage and statistics, charming and so on...*



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> As for average damage: You are wrong, Anubis and Seasong:



You did not read what I said. Or rather, you are not talking about the same thing as I was.







> As for the enchantment path:



I believe, if you read what I said, that you will find my admission on this matter.


----------



## Knight Otu (Apr 13, 2003)

After using the system a bit, I think there might be instances where you overrate the impact of some abilities.

Critical Hit immunity - while this is a broad category that prevents damage from several sources, I think it should not add more than 0.5 to CR, but due to it's broad application, it should add an additional 0.5 to ECL (basically splitting the +1 to CR in half). It is a powerful ability, but it is usually more advantageous for PCs than for monsters.

There seems to be an instance in the Incorporeal subtype that is overrated, but I could not identify it yet.

Large and larger sizes might be slightly overrated. Maybe it could be advantageous to split it into the main benefits, Reach and Speed?

I think you miscalculated the Ooze type.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 13, 2003)

Hi Knight Otu mate! 

This is actually Upper_Krust posting from London. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *After using the system a bit, I think there might be instances where you overrate the impact of some abilities.*




Well I have made some changes to even V.3



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Critical Hit immunity - while this is a broad category that prevents damage from several sources, I think it should not add more than 0.5 to CR, but due to it's broad application, it should add an additional 0.5 to ECL (basically splitting the +1 to CR in half). It is a powerful ability, but it is usually more advantageous for PCs than for monsters.*




Mmmm...I'll have a think.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *There seems to be an instance in the Incorporeal subtype that is overrated, but I could not identify it yet.*




I don't have a copy in front of me...I will later, but remember that Str - is now -2. So there are probably factors in the template not updated?



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Large and larger sizes might be slightly overrated. Maybe it could be advantageous to split it into the main benefits, Reach and Speed?*




Sounds a bit pedantic, remember of course that the size bonuses also take ability scores into account.



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I think you miscalculated the Ooze type. *




Same response as to the incorporeal template above.

I'll return to this point when I have a copy  of V.4 in front of me.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 13, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *You still calculate all Spell-like Abilities as described in the pdf...
> 
> ...then you add +0.2 x highest spell level (total). *




That would make a 6th level fireball spell-like ability, usable 3 times per day, more costly to ECL than wizard or sorcerer spellcasting levels. Is that how its supposed to work?


----------



## Kerrick (Apr 13, 2003)

I might have missed it, but I didn't see special immunities, like Immunity to Piercing and Edged weapons, in there anywhere. Or half damage from same, for that matter.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 13, 2003)

Hi kreynolds mate (Upper_Krust here)



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *That would make a 6th level fireball spell-like ability, usable 3 times per day, more costly to ECL than wizard or sorcerer spellcasting levels. Is that how its supposed to work? *




It would be more costly than a single integrated level, yes.

6th-level caster x 3rd level spell = 18 x 0.0015 = 0.027

0.027 + 0.6 (3rd-level spell) = +0.627

Compared with +0.7 for two integrated wizard or sorceror levels.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 13, 2003)

Hi kerrick mate!  (again Upper_Krust here).



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> *I might have missed it, but I didn't see special immunities, like Immunity to Piercing and Edged weapons, in there anywhere.*




Well depending on whether the ability is EX/SU.

+0.5/+1 One weapon type immunity
+2/+4 Two
+5/+10 Three

Though that is a difficult one to rate.



			
				Kerrick said:
			
		

> *Or half damage from same, for that matter. *




See 11.26 Weapon Resistance.


----------



## Knight Otu (Apr 14, 2003)

Hi, Upper_Krust!



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> I don't have a copy in front of me...I will later, but remember that Str - is now -2.*




That might help a bit...



> *Sounds a bit pedantic, remember of course that the size bonuses also take ability scores into account.*



OK. 



> *
> Same response as to the incorporeal template above.*




Maybe. It's off by 1, according to the listed factors.



> *Well depending on whether the ability is EX/SU.
> 
> +0.5/+1 One weapon type immunity
> +2/+4 Two
> +5/+10 Three *




I guess I miss something obvious, but why should the Supernatural version add more to the CR than the Extraordinary? Shouldn't it be the other way?


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 14, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *It would be more costly than a single integrated level, yes.
> 
> 6th-level caster x 3rd level spell = 18 x 0.0015 = 0.027
> 
> ...




This is incorrect then, yes? Is a single spell-like ability supposed to be worth more than a single but full integrated spellcasting level?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 14, 2003)

Edit: Got my question answered in another thread, so here's another one.

I have difficulty understanding the example with the troll being a PC. It becomes a ECL 9 creature with the +2 from regeneration, but I don't understand the wealth. If that is +2 from 9 levels of PC wealth, wouldn't it be cumulative over and over again, as the ECL for wealth for 11 lvls is even more etc.
I hope I'm making myself clear. What am I misunderstanding+

Thanks


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2003)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Hi, Upper_Krust!*




Hi Knight Otu mate!  (Its really me)



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I guess I miss something obvious, but why should the Supernatural version add more to the CR than the Extraordinary? Shouldn't it be the other way? *




...because the supernatural version is negated within anti-magic, whereas the extraordinary isn't.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2003)

Hi kreynolds mate  (U_K here)



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *This is incorrect then, yes? Is a single spell-like ability supposed to be worth more than a single but full integrated spellcasting level? *




It can be worth more to ECL, yes.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2003)

Hello again Sorcica!  (U_K here)



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *So is that +0.7 to CR total or what  Or is it per HD.*




Its just total. (I'm sure I specifically said 'total')



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Might be hard to figure out if you want to use it on a PC with a template. That is, if it's 0.7 per HD one would have to adjust each and every lvl. Which makes me think it's total.*




Yep, it is a total. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Also, what's the adjustment for increasing the HD by one?*




Monster HD (Average) +0.65 (per HD)

Class Level (Average) +0.8 (per HD*)

*Without equipment as detailed under both 1. 'Class Levels' and 14. 'Wealth' in the pdf.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Thanks *




No problem mate.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 14, 2003)

> Monster HD (Average) +0.65 (per HD)
> 
> Class Level (Average) +0.8 (per HD*)
> 
> *Without equipment as detailed under both 1. 'Class Levels' and 14. 'Wealth' in the pdf.




If this is per HD, doesn't it become a hassle if applied to a PC that may advance quite some lvls? I mean, no effect at 1st lvl (+0,8 ECL), lvl adjustment at 2nd lvl (+1,6 ECL) - has to wait a lvl and then adjust again etc.

What am I misunderstanding?

It seems that it's much more appealing for a PC to max. his HP than increase his HD.

  

Comments?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 14, 2003)

DoH!!!

That's per size increase, right


----------



## Judas (Apr 14, 2003)

Wow.. this thread looks good. I wanted to ask before downloading, is the link in the first post the latest version, or is there a different link to the latest version?


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2003)

Hi Sorcica!  (U_K here)



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *If this is per HD, doesn't it become a hassle if applied to a PC that may advance quite some lvls? I mean, no effect at 1st lvl (+0,8 ECL), lvl adjustment at 2nd lvl (+1,6 ECL) - has to wait a lvl and then adjust again etc.
> 
> What am I misunderstanding?*




Well, if the PC level goes up usually its accompanied by PC equipment, meaning the CR is +1.0/level.

But if you create a Template that adds 6 character levels (without increasing equipment accordingly) then it should only be ECL +5.

If you are creating a template that adds 6 Hit Dice to a character or monster then the CR/ECL is determined depending on the monster 'type'. Since Dragon HD is better than Vermin HD etc.

I outline in the pdf under 3. Hit Dice exactly how each type is rated. I also show in the design parameters how to balance your own classes and monster types.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *It seems that it's much more appealing for a PC to max. his HP than increase his HD.
> 
> 
> 
> Comments? *




Maximising your hit points has (on average) the same effect as increasing your Constitution Score by 7, in fact probably less net effect since it would have no bearing on saves and checks.

Probably more akin to 0.5 now that I think about it.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *DoH!!!
> 
> That's per size increase, right*




For what? Now I'm confused.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 14, 2003)

Hey there Judas!  (Upper_Krust here)



			
				Judas said:
			
		

> *Wow.. this thread looks good.*




Appreciate the interest.



			
				Judas said:
			
		

> *I wanted to ask before downloading, is the link in the first post the latest version, or is there a different link to the latest version? *




The latest released is Version 3 here:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46913

However, there are still a few minor tweaks needed to it, the main one I also mention in the thread I have just given you is about a revision to unrated ability scores which subsequently affected some of the Templates and Types/Subtypes.

The final version will of course be in the Immortals Handbook.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 15, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *Hi Sorcica!  (U_K here)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I meant that the +0.8 CR for a HD increase was per HD size increase.

It seems that this is not the case. Which means I'm still quite confused.

If I create a template, give it some abilities - including a HD size increase, and then apply the template to a PC, what do I do? I need to have a sort of 'final ECL', which isn't possible if the adjustment happens at each and every lvl.

I am afraid that I just don't get it.    The CR with equipment is +1 per lvl. That makes sense. But is I increase HD and get equipment, would it be +1,8 CR per lvl?
That's what I mean by it being 'better' to have max HP for only +0,5-0,7 to final CR/ECL.

Also, I have difficulty understanding the example with the troll being a PC. It becomes a ECL 9 creature with the +2 from regeneration, but I don't understand the wealth. If that is +2 from 9 levels of PC wealth, wouldn't it be cumulative over and over again, as the ECL for wealth for 11 lvls is even more etc.
I hope I'm making myself clear. What am I misunderstanding? (quite a lot, it seems...)

I would love it if you could post ratings for the core classes i.e. what the class abilities are worth in CR. I think that abilities like Summon Familiar and Divine Grace are hard to rate.
It would also make it easier to create alternative classes, or a template that grants a d12 as HD, no matter what class, for instance. What would the CR be for that, BTW? 

I'm really really interested in these books and in particular this system (as we haven't seen the books yet  ..when, oh when) as this could very well be the 'ultimate Savage Species' 

Thanks for any clarification.

Edit: added a question


----------



## S'mon (Apr 15, 2003)

Hi there Sorcica!  (Upper Krust here)



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I meant that the +0.8 CR for a HD increase was per HD size increase.
> 
> It seems that this is not the case. Which means I'm still quite confused.*




I am slightly confused myself because I don't seem to be able to pin point what you are asking me.

Increasing (or decreasing) a monsters size (and the effects this has on CR/ECL) is dealt with in the pdf.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *If I create a template, give it some abilities - including a HD size increase, and then apply the template to a PC, what do I do? I need to have a sort of 'final ECL', which isn't possible if the adjustment happens at each and every lvl.*




Can you please explain to me what a _HD size increase_ is?

I know what a HD increase is.
I know what a size increase is.
But what is a HD size increase? 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I am afraid that I just don't get it.   *




It should all become clearer when you explain what a HD size increase is.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *The CR with equipment is +1 per lvl. That makes sense. But is I increase HD and get equipment, would it be +1,8 CR per lvl?
> That's what I mean by it being 'better' to have max HP for like +0,5-0,7 to final CR/ECL.*




Class Levels = CR +0.8/level
Class Levels with NPC equipment = CR +0.9/level
Class Levels with PC equipment = CR +1/level

Monster Hit Dice depends on the 'type' of monster to determine CR.

eg. Dragon = CR +0.75/HD
Giant = CR +0.55/HD
etc.

If you were to add PC equipment to them...

Dragon with PC equipment = CR +0.95/HD
Giant with PC equipment = CR +0.75/HD



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *also, I have difficulty understanding the example with the troll being a PC. It becomes a ECL 9 creature with the +2 from regeneration, but I don't understand the wealth. If that is +2 from 9 levels of PC wealth, wouldn't it be cumulative over and over again, as the ECL for wealth for 11 lvls is even more etc.
> I hope I'm making myself clear. What am I misunderstanding? (quite a lot, it seems...)*




The Troll gets ECL 9 from its own abilities. Therefore it should have at least 9th-level PC equipment.

9th-level PC equipment = CR +1.8 (9 x 0.2)

So the Troll would be CR 10.8 with 9th-level equipment. However, generally you want the level of equipment and the ECL to match.

If we add 10th-level equipment  CR +2 (10 x 0.2) the Troll becomes ECL 11. (still doesn't match)

So if we add 11th-level PC equipment = CR +2.2 (11 x 0.2) to the Troll we get ECL 11.2 (This rounds down to ECL 11).

So now we have the Trolls ECL and Equipment both balanced at 11th-level.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I'm really really interested in these books and in particular this system (as we haven't seen the books yet  ..when, oh when) as this could very well be the 'ultimate Savage Species' *




I'm confident the CR/ECL system will just be the tip of the iceberg. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Thanks for any clarification. *




We'll get to the bottom of this eventually...I hope.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 15, 2003)

Hi There, UK!

Okay, I'll try once again to make myself understandable Seems I having a hard time doing this.

HD size increase is me talking rubbish. I _mean_ a HD increase, a la the Half-Dragon template.
I understand that a lvl increase with wealth is +1CR. That's one of the basics of the entire system, as far as I understand.
But I don't understand what the CR/ECL increase would be, if I added a template that increased HD by one. If I'm reading your replies correctly, it's +0.8/HD. But how do I apply this to a PC? A 5th level would have one CR modifier, a 9th level another. Very confusing and non-transparent for the player (and GM).
Or is it +0.8 CR _total_. That makes more sense to me, albeit a little low IMO, and not very equal to max. HP at ~+0.6 CR. 

I think rolleyes: ) that I'm almost getting this, but a clarification would be very welcome. Also, some insight on class abilities, as I mentioned in my previous post, would be more than welcome. 

Anyway, thanks for your time and keep up the good work.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 15, 2003)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Anubis I'm sorry to say your wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Whoops . . . Hahaha . . . *kicks typo*


----------



## Anubis (Apr 15, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Howdy Seasong.
> 
> I have since read your subsequent post. If you wish to leave it at that, I understand. Otherwise, I submit the following insights.
> *




Wouldn't you like that?  I'm baaaaaaack . . .



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> We could not disagree more.
> *




Disagree all you want, but it's a FACT that a majority of combat does not happen by surprise nor at 100 feet.  Most adventures take place in dungeons, and dungeon combat generally starts at around 30 feet.  This is common knowledge.  Yes other adventures are out there, but we're talking about MOST COMMON.  Ya' know, as in 51%+ of the time.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> I dropped nothing. I took the default array "as is" without converting it into points. I did so to embrace an objective standard, in much the same way that I did not make Twink an Enchanter specialist. If I were to modify Twink, it would be as follows.
> ...




Although you still drop Constitution.  Sorry, no good player does that, I don't care what iconics do.  A player is unlikely to do this.  If he's an Elf, maybe, but not a Human.  It's not about wanting to soak damage, it's about BEING ABLE TO SOAK DAMAGE.  Try as they might, Wizards and Sorcerers can't avoid getting smacked around forever.  They need hit points to survive.  Smart opponents will go after these types right away.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Saving throws for 1st level spells, DC 14 (16 for enchantment).
> 
> As for your example, multiple elements have to be considered. Who surprises who? Do they surprise each other. My original objection to 2400 XP was for a 1st level wizard who gets the drop on my two 2nd level fighter hobgoblins. If such a wizard encountered these hobgoblins at melee range, I would be the first person to concede that he would probably lose, "if" he lost initiative. If the arcane spellcaster does not, the odds significantly shift in his favor.
> *




Not by much.  Any which way, it's the law of averages that determines the XP.  You shouldn't lower XP awards just because PCs get lucky.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Time to flesh out Twink a bit more. With the 16 Intelligence I gave him a spellbook with: charm person, color spray, mage armor, magic missile, sleep, and shield.
> 
> I consider this list standard fair for a wizard. Feel free to disagree. Twink likes enchanting (without being an enchanting specialist), so I also chose charm person, although I have no plans of using it during this combat.
> *




Fair enough.  For a Wziard, I could see this.  Not for a Sorcerer, but for a Wizard yes.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Twink has memorized shield, ray of frost x3, and sleep. This will be explained in a moment. He has "at least" one of every 1st level spell converted into a scroll for a total cost of 75 gold and 6 XP. I would feel comfortable doubling this number of scrolls, but you may not. Suffice it to say, if Twink is going to assault two hobgoblins by himself, then he is going to come prepared. Scribe Scroll is a huge advantage to any spellcaster, and one that any "thinking" wizard (with Scribe Scroll as a class ability) will utilize to their uttermost advantage.
> *




Two problems.  Number one, why is your Enchantment-loving Wizard foregoing the use of Daze, THE absolute best 0-Level Wizard spell?  It does much more than Ray of Frost could ever do, after all.  Also, PCs rarely, if ever, make so many scrolls.  To do so eats up lots of XP for single-shot items.  Most PCs are greedy with their XP.  They certainly won't make tons of scrolls at LEVEL 1.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> For the sake of examining this combat, Twink woke up this morning with the single-minded purpose of taking out the two hobgoblin bullies who have been throwing their weight around a small farming village. To maintain an "open field" encounter, we'll say the encounter transpires in a rice field. It is the sole intent of Twink to ambush the hobgoblins at a distance of 100 feet.
> 
> Now I couldn't help but notice that your ambush example paid no attention to the distance modifiers for Spotting and Listening, but rather, automatically presumed the hobgoblins heard and saw Twink cast his shield spell 100 feet away. Perhaps that will change now. I will assume the two hobgoblins are facing each other (rather than facing one direction) and have a wide periphery of vision between two of them. Twink will presumably emerge out of a forested area.
> ...




Well, in such a situation, your character has controlled every single aspect of the encounter.  You have become the DM at this point, and get no XP whatsoever.  You have totally lost this argument, man.  Give it up!  Go away!  Leave us alone!

You're starting to just get annoying at this point!  The Anubis says take your little controlled test scenario, spellcheck it and proofread it and make it look all nice and cute, turn it sideways, and stick it straight up your candy ass!

Oh, and by the way, before anyone gets on my ass for flaming, that was meant as a joke.  He said something ridiculous, so I fired back the same.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> -----
> 
> Anubis.
> ...




Your 100% controlled combat is the non-sensical thing.  Why are primarily underground creatures standing in a rice field?  Are they hungry or something?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> You perception of sorcerers is a strange one. A smart sorcerer, realizing he has two spells at first level, chooses one offensive and one defensive. Don’t make things more complicated for yourself than they already seem to be. As for not taking sleep because it loses power later on? Dude, you’re a hypocrite. You took Combat Casting and Toughness! At least sleep will potentially keep the sorcerer alive long enough to reach a higher level (unlike your feat choices).
> 
> As for mind controllers not being common… how does that relate to this argument? I said mind controlling is a viable choice. The point you killed is one I didn’t even make! Talk about arguing with your own shadow! What I have made is a wizard who picked Spell Focus (enchantment). He’s not a specialist. He’s a generalist. You have made a meat sponge who forgot that he has pathetic wizard Hit Dice. Not to worry though, if you want to change your feat choices to something more “in keeping” with a wizard, I don’t think anybody will object.
> *




I never said it wasn't a viable choice.  I said it's uncommon.  To test ANYTHING, you MUST (I repeat, MUST) use a COMMON scenario.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> As for two offensive spells at 1st level, what you commonly see is foolishness. A sorcerer has access to simple melee and ranged weapons; that is their secondary sources of damage at 1st level. The second spell should always be defensive.
> ...




No, it's called being able to survive getting hit, which is bound to happen at some point.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> My specialized situation is a generalist wizard. You have ceased making sense. But I am painting a clear picture of your games.
> *




Ha, you ceased making sense a long time ago.  You haven't used a single common denominator for any of your arguments.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> What must be common for you are wizards who plan on taking serious damage at 1st level by charging into both melee and ranged battle with d4 damage spells and no defensive options to protect them. Got it.
> 
> 
> ...




Now you're just being stupid.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Hehe. Your best argument yet! But one that unfortunately speaks without experience. It’s not all fireballs and lightning bolts after all.
> 
> Those are examples Anubis. To be used or not, at DM discretion. They do not represent “the rule”. This combat example has so far used the standard hobgoblin with 2nd level fighter progression. You have officially started grasping at straws.
> *




No, I'm using the "standard".



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Completely unrelated (mostly because your XP values are 10 degrees removed from reality) but if I had a DM that gave me 14,400 XP for a single random dice role, I would fire them.
> 
> Do you always prematurely pat yourself on the back this quickly?
> ...




I only get upset when people cease debating in a logical manner.


----------



## -Eä- (Apr 15, 2003)

Some minor thoughts from me (-:


I just wonder... What is wrong in giving 14 400 XP for rolling a single die? You can get 100 XP, 200 XP, and so on... If the situation presented itself, warranting 14 400 XP for a single roll, that wouldn't be too bad. I admit, the probability for such things happening should be very low, but say... If the probability of getting 14 400 XP for one single (relatively random, your example isn't absolutely random) is 1/1000000000, then it happens on average one in a billionth time, and if that circumstance applies to your character entirely by chance, why would that be wrong?

I bet in a real campaign, the given example hasn't been played, so if it would happen, what would be bad about it? Yes, the probability for such a circumstance to happen would be low, but this isn't a bad thing! Everything CAN happen it's just a matter of probability. Nitpicking about situations that would occur one in a trillion (?) times is therefore irrelevant, as, at least in my opinion, there should be room for everything to happen.

These logic may be applied to weird creations as well... As long as races, monsters standard relative to the campaign setting comes out right, then those utterly weird creations giving what seems to be a CR too high for the given challenge would have an utterly low probability of showing up as well, and given the situation, the reward would be out of proportion given the challenges relative to an even higher CR of "standard" beasts, this isn't just one of these "high-probability" happenings.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 16, 2003)

I just got my computer working again last night, so let’s start at the beginning. I’ll keep this brief.

-----

seasong.

Not trying to get last word at all. It just looked like you were stepping off the debate and I was trying to respect that. Far be from me to do so again.

Even at 30 feet, I still think 2400 XP is excessive. Not sure where you got the idea that I didn’t? That’s why I start down this road in the first place.

The detail of my 100 feet example of combat was not an objection to Upper_Krust’s CR system per se. It was an academic look at the inherent flaws found in your tailor-made scenario from the same distance.

-----

Anubis.

I can see the city/dungeon/wilderness point flew right over your head.

Not getting hit versus taking damage. Whether sorcerers or wizards have one extra hit point or not won’t save them. They have a d4 for Hit Dice! Perhaps that point will sink in this time. Sorcerer and wizards avoid melee combat and cast from behind the meat sponges. Avoidance of melee combat is their hallmark.

Scrolls take up XP? Six 1st level scrolls = 6 XP. Wizards have no problem making scrolls.

It’s funny how both you and seasong accuse me of “controlling” every aspect of the encounter. I have controlled nothing except the distance and the actions of my own character (entirely possible during regular game play). I added the rice field for flavor, but the game mechanic geography is identical to the "open field" combat scenerio seasong presented. So rather than actually contesting how easy it is for Twink to kill both hobgoblins and earn (up to) 2400 XP (using Upper_Krust’s CR system) for a cake-walk battle, you both cry foul instead. I used logic and basic game mechanics to shore up my example. Perhaps you can do the same?

One more thing Anubis. Watch your mouth. Your abundance of ego and lack of wit are getting the best of you.

------

Hello -Eä-

Sorry for tagging a reply to you onto the bottom here.

Basically, I prefer to reward players with XP based on their accomplishments and role-playing (more than a single random dice roll).


----------



## seasong (Apr 16, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> seasong.
> 
> Not trying to get last word at all. It just looked like you were stepping off the debate and I was trying to respect that. Far be from me to do so again.



If I'd actually been upset, I'd have started that thread I suggested you start . I _am_ interested in the discussion, I just don't think this is the right place to have it - we've discussed the aspects of the argument that have any bearing whatsoever on Upper Krust's system, and all that remains is a Fight Club discussion.


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 16, 2003)

All I got to say, is that although me and Anubis often disagree, I do agree with him on the Constitution point.  Everyone needs Con, especially low hit point characters with bad fort saves.  Sure, having more dex means you can hit better with your xbow and might avoid a couple more physical attacks, but having a good con helps you soak damage, say from spells, or breath weapons.  I mean, even if it's a reflex for half, that bit more dex isn't gonna help you save that often, but having one or 2 more hit points per level might just garantee that you won't die when you do fail that save.  And for fortitude saves, you'll be thanking your lucky stars that you have a decent Con, cause most failed fort saves end with death.

I mean, for godsake, do you people only fight physical opponents?  What happened to classic monsters that have effects that require fort saves, like medusa, and beholders, anything with a gas attack or death attack etc etc..  I had this same problem when trying to argue that saves are more important than SR cause they're more useful in more situations.

About the whole wizard vs hobgoblins, I say if the little tyke indeed does kill the hobgobs when all things are equal (ie, they start within double move of him, and neighter party is surprised) then he deserves alot of exp, because the record shows that it's a nigh impossible feat of luck.  I mean, the wizard you're building seems to be as close to "munchkin first level hobgoblin killer" as you can get without making him totally lame.  (like the coup de grace master that someone came up with, who'd play that dweeb? )  And he still doesn't have that reasonable of a chance of winning.  Not reasonable enough that I'd risk it.  (I'm pretty cautious when I'm not assured a rez after death).

As for enchantment being a useful focus...  Not really.  It's like building a character that's only useful if he can critical or sneak attack (imagine a rogue with base damage 1).  Far too many creatures immune to his spells.  See my suggestion about removing the immunity to mind effects from all creatures with intellegence, and UK agreed with me =)  Then the enchanter / telepath would be a good route.

And again, I have to agree with Anubis that the average starting distance on combat is indeed between 60 and 20 feet.  After all, what is torch light range, and what is darkvision range?  Thats when they first SEE eachother, if you take my meaning.  Considering that most dungeons don't have very long coridors or huge rooms, 30 feet is probably the mean.

Hmm.. hell froze over, I agreed with Anubis on not one but two points!  Anyone wanna make some snowmen?

 

Eldorian Antar


----------



## S'mon (Apr 16, 2003)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Hi There, UK!*




Hi Sorcica mate!  (U_K here)

Apologies for the slow reply, have been busy for the past 24 hours.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Okay, I'll try once again to make myself understandable Seems I having a hard time doing this.
> 
> HD size increase is me talking rubbish. *








			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I mean a HD increase, a la the Half-Dragon template.*




Okay. Well the Half-Dragon doesn't gain a HD increase as such - rather it gains a *HD type* increase.

Meaning that whatever your HD type was, it is now d12 like a dragon.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I understand that a lvl increase with wealth is +1CR. That's one of the basics of the entire system, as far as I understand.*




Yep.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *But I don't understand what the CR/ECL increase would be, if I added a template that increased HD by one. If I'm reading your replies correctly, it's +0.8/HD. *




Not exactly.

It would only be +0.5 for one construct hit die; it would only be +0.75 per dragon hit die, etc.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *But how do I apply this to a PC? A 5th level would have one CR modifier, a 9th level another. Very confusing and non-transparent for the player (and GM).*




Well a 5th-level PC is typically CR 5. a 9th-level PC is typically CR 9.

If you were to add one Construct Hit Die their CR/ECL wouldn't change. But if you added two then they would each increase by +1 CR/ECL.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Or is it +0.8 CR total. That makes more sense to me, albeit a little low IMO, and not very equal to max. HP at ~+0.6 CR. *




No.

Maximum Hit points gives about the same as a +0.5 CR bonus (total).



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I think (  ) that I'm almost getting this, but a clarification would be very welcome.*




Whatever it is I am sure I either know, or can work out the answer. Its just understanding the question that can be confusing. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Also, some insight on class abilities, as I mentioned in my previous post, would be more than welcome. *




Basic factors are dealt with in Design Parameters (and also see Integrated Spell Levels), although I didn't really have room to outline every class feature in the pdf.

eg. The class feature to cast sorceror or wizard spells is +0.35/level.

The class feature to cast cleric spells is +0.3/level.

The class feature to cast druid spells is +0.25/level.

etc.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Anyway, thanks for your time and keep up the good work. *




No problem mate, I appreciate the interest,


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 16, 2003)

Hi there U_K



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Okay. Well the Half-Dragon doesn't gain a HD increase as such - rather it gains a HD type increase.
> 
> Meaning that whatever your HD type was, it is now d12 like a dragon. *




Ehh..I beg do differ. The half-dragon increase your HD type by one to a maximum of d12, according to the MM and DMG. I don't know if this is different in SS, but unless they've changed it, that's the case.



> Not exactly.
> 
> It would only be +0.5 for one construct hit die; it would only be +0.75 per dragon hit die, etc.




I think I finally am able to make myself understandable. I mean a HD *type* increase. Fx from d8 to d10.




> Well a 5th-level PC is typically CR 5. a 9th-level PC is typically CR 9.
> 
> If you were to add one Construct Hit Die their CR/ECL wouldn't change. But if you added two then they would each increase by +1 CR/ECL.




Yep, but what I meant was a HD type increase. So, what would it be then, in CR?




> Basic factors are dealt with in Design Parameters (and also see Integrated Spell Levels), although I didn't really have room to outline every class feature in the pdf.
> 
> eg. The class feature to cast sorceror or wizard spells is +0.35/level.
> 
> ...




Yep, I'm aware of that  It's just that abilities like Divine Grace and such are things are a bit difficult to gauge correctly (at least for me....).


Another thing. I'm afraid to open a can of worms, but the issuse of ability scores affecting CR or not is relevant when CR is used as ECL.
You yourself increase the value of regen. and fast healing when applied to a PC. I am of the opinion, that ability modiers are one of the deciding factors for a player wanting to play a monster of some sort. I know that the dssign parameters take care of most of the problems, except they don't.
There's a big difference in playing an ogre with +10 str, -2 dex and -4 int than playing another large creature with +10 or +15 to all stats.
I'm not sure what the solution should be, though  

Well, I'm off for Easter. Have a good one, and looking forward to your reply.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 16, 2003)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I think I finally am able to make myself understandable. I mean a HD type increase. Fx from d8 to d10. *




Ah. I get what you're saying. A d8 HD is +0.25. A d10 HD +0.3. If you're HD type is increased retroactively, you would just add the difference between the two (+0.05 per HD) to the ECL. For example, if a 6 HD creature, with a d8 for hit die, gains a template that increases its HD, its over CR should increase by +0.3 (6 HD x +0.05).

Do I have that right UK? Or am I way off the mark.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 16, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ah. I get what you're saying. A d8 HD is +0.25. A d10 HD +0.3. If you're HD type is increased retroactively, you would just add the difference between the two (+0.05 per HD) to the ECL. For example, if a 6 HD creature, with a d8 for hit die, gains a template that increases its HD, its over CR should increase by +0.3 (6 HD x +0.05).
> 
> Do I have that right UK? Or am I way off the mark. *




Nope, you're on the mark, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks  So, if this template was to be added to a PC, it would be ECL +1 (saying 0.05 * 20 lvls)?

Or what? This does not seem balanced with UK's estimation that max HP should be approx. +0.5 CR.
If you're a 20th lvl fighter, would you rather have 200 hp and a few bonuses to spare (max hp) or 119 hp (the avg. of d12 at 19d12)?

Comments? (befor I leave for Easter - really got to get going.. )


----------



## Anubis (Apr 16, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *All I got to say, is that although me and Anubis often disagree, I do agree with him on the Constitution point.  Everyone needs Con, especially low hit point characters with bad fort saves.  Sure, having more dex means you can hit better with your xbow and might avoid a couple more physical attacks, but having a good con helps you soak damage, say from spells, or breath weapons.  I mean, even if it's a reflex for half, that bit more dex isn't gonna help you save that often, but having one or 2 more hit points per level might just garantee that you won't die when you do fail that save.  And for fortitude saves, you'll be thanking your lucky stars that you have a decent Con, cause most failed fort saves end with death.
> 
> I mean, for godsake, do you people only fight physical opponents?  What happened to classic monsters that have effects that require fort saves, like medusa, and beholders, anything with a gas attack or death attack etc etc..  I had this same problem when trying to argue that saves are more important than SR cause they're more useful in more situations.
> 
> ...




Whoa!  Okay time to jot this down . . . 04-15-2003 08:27 PM . . . Anubis and Eldorian on the same side!    It's like the Unholy Alliance or something!  MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 16, 2003)

Eldorian.

For all the times that Dexterity will come in useful (you list these yourself; AC, initiative, ranged combat, Reflex saving throws; basically during every combat), making that attribute higher than Constitution will be far more useful to wizards than the one or two extra hit points they stand to gain (for a class that is already avoiding combat) or Fortitude saves (for that handful of creatures that whose special abilities prompt one). I stand by my convictions.

As for the record, the Twink examples have so far shown that if the wizard wins initiative, he pretty much commands the combat. For a wizard that already has 600 or so XP fighting the two 2nd level fighter hobgoblins of my example, that’s a 1st to 3rd level transition. Hardly warranted for a single random dice roll.

To address your belief that Twink is tweaked specifically for killing hobgoblins ... that’s a wild claim and not one you can support. Twink is a standard generalist with more than a passing interest in the school of enchantment (once again, not to be underestimated). Casting more potent charm and sleep spells does not make him a hobgoblin killer. It makes him a typical low-level monster killer. By another word, you could even call him an adventurer (albeit one that thinks ahead).



Let’s see now, when your most common low level spell attack is _sleep_, suddenly grabbing a light weight, high critical, coup-de-grace weapon seems like a good idea. Funny that. So far, everything about Twink is perfectly ordinary (as wizards go).

As for establishing ranges, your estimations are bound to dungeons as well. Well done! You’ve covered about 33% of the common gaming environments.



-----

Anubis.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> Anubis and Eldorian on the same side!  It's like the Unholy Alliance or something!



I love it! In the same way that misery loves company, apparently misconceptions are no different! I guess anything beats actually looking at the evidence. Can I get you some ignorance to go with your bliss? Oh that's right! They're one and the same.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 16, 2003)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Hi there U_K*




Hey Sorcica mate!  (U_K here)



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Ehh..I beg do differ. The half-dragon increase your HD type by one to a maximum of d12, according to the MM and DMG. I don't know if this is different in SS, but unless they've changed it, that's the case.
> 
> I think I finally am able to make myself understandable. I mean a HD type increase. Fx from d8 to d10.*




Glad we finally understand each other. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Yep, but what I meant was a HD type increase. So, what would it be then, in CR?*




Virtually nothing. But dependant on the previous Level/HD type of course.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Yep, I'm aware of that  It's just that abilities like Divine Grace and such are things are a bit difficult to gauge correctly (at least for me....).*




Try and gauge each ability in comparison to a feat. Then divide the total number of abilities over the space of 20 levels by 20.

eg. the fighter gets +11 feats over 20 levels. We know that each feat is roughly +0.2. Therefore the fighter gains about +0.11 from its class features.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Another thing. I'm afraid to open a can of worms, but the issuse of ability scores affecting CR or not is relevant when CR is used as ECL.*




Yes they are applied to ECL. I'll make that clearer in Version 4.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *You yourself increase the value of regen. and fast healing when applied to a PC. I am of the opinion, that ability modiers are one of the deciding factors for a player wanting to play a monster of some sort. I know that the dssign parameters take care of most of the problems, except they don't.
> There's a big difference in playing an ogre with +10 str, -2 dex and -4 int than playing another large creature with +10 or +15 to all stats.
> I'm not sure what the solution should be, though *




Indeed. The solution is pretty simple. 

EITHER

You have to assign +0.5/size increase above medium (instead of +1.5). Then add ability scores.

OR

Keep the size modifier as +1.5. Then factor in all ability scores different from the benefits of size increases.

+8 str, +4 con, -2 dex/size increase above medium.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Well, I'm off for Easter. Have a good one, and looking forward to your reply. *




Happy Easter mate!


----------



## S'mon (Apr 16, 2003)

Hello kreynolds mate!  (U_K here)



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Ah. I get what you're saying. A d8 HD is +0.25. A d10 HD +0.3. If you're HD type is increased retroactively, you would just add the difference between the two (+0.05 per HD) to the ECL. For example, if a 6 HD creature, with a d8 for hit die, gains a template that increases its HD, its over CR should increase by +0.3 (6 HD x +0.05).
> 
> Do I have that right UK? Or am I way off the mark. *




Thats right. 

Remember that you only apply the bonus for every individual HD increased.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 16, 2003)

Hello again mate!  (U_K natch.)



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Nope, you're on the mark, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks  So, if this template was to be added to a PC, it would be ECL +1 (saying 0.05 * 20 lvls)?
> 
> Or what? This does not seem balanced with UK's estimation that max HP should be approx. +0.5 CR.
> If you're a 20th lvl fighter, would you rather have 200 hp and a few bonuses to spare (max hp) or 119 hp (the avg. of d12 at 19d12)?
> ...




Technically the HD type increase adds nothing though, since its going to be incorporated into your base figure. Whereas the max. hp total is significant. However, either on their own won't add a full ECL.

However, I think with regards ECL it may be better to round fractions from +0.5 up.


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 16, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Eldorian.
> 
> For all the times that Dexterity will come in useful (you list these yourself; AC, initiative, ranged combat, Reflex saving throws; basically during every combat), making that attribute higher than Constitution will be far more useful to wizards than the one or two extra hit points they stand to gain (for a class that is already avoiding combat) or Fortitude saves (for that handful of creatures that whose special abilities prompt one). I stand by my convictions.
> 
> ...





Um... wizards aviod combat?  Since when?  Dnd is about combat, you can't avoid it unless you're playing atypical dnd.  And dex will help you avoid a hit or two, but con will help you survive a hit.  I mean, face it, without con, your own fireball will kill you.  Sure your increased dex _may_ help you save, but eventually, you will fail that save, and BAM dead wizard.  With a bit of con, you're almost garanteed to survive one failed save, and then hope you get healed afterward.  Trust me, ac is so hard to increase, especially with the changes to haste, that a wizard is better off going for miss chances from blur or displacement or ghost form, and increased mobility from spells like fly and ghostform (ghost form is the best defensive spell), and con for the HP.  Can't go wrong with HP.  As for you saying that fortitude saves are rare.. HA.  You need to play more dnd.  There are ALOT of fortitude saves out there.  Look in the phb.  the MM.  Play a few games...  Poison, death effects. etc etc.

And I was talking about the plethera of scrolls your character had prepared, looked like he was planning on having a solo fight to me.  And sleep is a crappy spell for sorcerers, as is enchantment focus;  Color spray remains somewhat useful at higher levels, and enchantments are far to limited in utility to specialize in.  Do transmutation instead and get eyebite, then you have your neccessary charming abilites (and eyebite is such a useful spell for sorcerers, who was the origninal proposed character to fight the hobgobos anyways).  

And I take great offence to your last comment.  Tone it down or I shall become viscious.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## S'mon (Apr 17, 2003)

This is Upper_Krust.

To Anubis, Eldorian, Seasong and Sonofapreacherman.

You guys better keep things amicable or I will start laying a few smackdowns...I guaran-damn-tee it.

I've kept away from this particular debate because its far too subjective for my tastes.

Do not force my divine intervention on this matter.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *And I take great offence to your last comment.  Tone it down or I shall become viscious.*




Don't you mean vicious?


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 17, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *Don't you mean vicious?  *




I think he meant he would become aggressively sticky.


----------



## Shalewind (Apr 17, 2003)

> I think he meant he would become aggressively sticky.




This is the funniest thing I've heard all morning. 

Anubis: While I agree with you on the CON issue (mostly anyway ) I think the reliance on any form of certain distance is flawed.

While a great deal of the 3E community plays in dungeon settings (after all it is called D&D) a great number of people also play in wildness, city, and rural settings. I may not be the standard player, but I hardly ever see a dungeon crawl and I know several like me.

I'm not saying that dungeon encounter don't account for a large portion of the normal gaming community, but I don't think it is fair to say that encounter distance is a 51%+ done at 30 ft. Just like it wouldn't be fair to say that encounter distance is 51%+ 100 ft. This whole average combat scenario can't be nailed down (although I used to say the same about CR ).

UK: Is your CR system open and ready for publish? I know you are still waiting for the next SRD update for the whole thing in ImHB, but I take it the CR system is ready to go?


----------



## seasong (Apr 17, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> To Anubis, Eldorian, Seasong and Sonofapreacherman.



Done?  I'll try to watch myself more carefully...

More on topic, how's version 4 coming along?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 17, 2003)

Eldorian.

You're being selective now. I didn't say that wizards avoid combat ... period. (Perhaps my Twink example wasn't proof enough?) Wizards avoid "melee" combat by casting spells behind the fighter-type meat sponges. Because of that fact, Constitution isn't as relevant to wizards as Dexterity (unless, like Anubis, you are creating frontline wizards). A high Dexterity (combined with _mage armor_ and _shield_) can make wizards invulnerable to any melee or ranged attacks that doesn't roll a natural 20. And if low-level wizards gets hit with a natural 20 (with or without all that magical protection) no amount of hit points are going to save them.

Moreover, at 3rd level a _protection from arrows_ spell becomes a wizard's best friend. A high Constitution for hit points is simply not needed. I'm not denying that single-classed wizards occasionally build up their Constitution, but only as a crutch because they don't trust their own spellcasting abilities. Arcane spells, if used correctly, make a high Constitution score redundant. I think you even began making this point yourself with your some of your spell examples.

Any wizard should have a bevy of scrolls, regardless of the opponents they face. Scribe Scroll is a class ability that should be used to its greatest advantage. A wizard without scrolls is like a warrior without their armor and weapons. Yes, scrolls cost XP, but you have to spend money to make money; XP is no different for a wizard. It doesn't make Twink a hobgoblin killer. It's makes him a standard adventurer.

As for my last comment (presumably to Anubis) if he can control his mouth, then so shall I. If he cannot, then I will be toning *nothing* down, regardless of your reputed "slipperiness".



Of course, if the divine wrath of Upper_Krust parts the clouds to rain down holy fire, I will behave no matter what, but that is a matter of respect.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 17, 2003)

*A question about  Party EL and CR*

Let's say you have a 4-man party of 20th level characters. Under this system:

What whould be a moderate encounter (CR+0)?

How many experience points would each member get for taking out a Titan (CR28)?

Here's my estimation of question 1, let me know if I'm right or wrong.

"The PEL is always their actual level divided by 4"

According to table 1-1A, the actual EL of the group is 18. The above quote suggests that PEL therefore equals 14 (this is where I fear I may be wrong).

So an appropriate (moderate) challenge would be something that is EL14, for example a single CR 10 critter. That doesn't seem right.

If I'm misunderstanding that quote, and apply no modificaton, then the moderate encounter would be a CR20 critter, which seems reasonable.

Darren


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 17, 2003)

Upper_Krust.

I'm trying to make sense of your mixed opponent rules.

I still don't understand how 241.6R% of a Base Unit EL 24 comes to 26?

I thought that perhaps it was 241.6R% of the Great Red Dragon CR56. But that would come to CR135 and an EL of 29.

What am I doing wrong?


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 17, 2003)

> I still don't understand how 241.6R% of a Base Unit EL 24 comes to 26?




Hey, I can answer that one!

If you look at table 1-2 Encounter Level by Number of Opponents, the modifier for 2 opponents is +2, and 3 opponents is +3.
241.6% is greater than 2 but less than 3.

Darren


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 17, 2003)

demiurgeastaroth.

Thanks, that cleared it right up ... and also gave me an idea.

-----

Upper_Krust.

If you can give me a definite answer on this subject ... that would be great.

Right now I am calculating the two 2nd level fighter hobgoblins to be worth CR 2 each (1.8 with NPC wealth +0.2 for darkvision). That's EL 5 each. Because there are 2 of them, EL 5 jumps to EL 7.

Now, assuming rounding down is new rule, do I or don't I add darkvision as a CR modifier to a monster that advances as a character class (assuming their total racial modifier does not exceed +0.5)?

If I don't ... those hobgoblins become CR 1/EL 1 each and EL 3 together.

If I do ... then here's my thought.

Looking at Table 1–2, make the stipulation for 1.5 "mixed" opponents also the same modifier for 2 opponents (when not calculating mixed opponents) and then stagger all the other modifiers accordingly ... ending with 
24–31 Opponents at EL +8.

That would make those hobgoblins (with a darkvision +0.2 CR bonus) become CR 2/EL5 each and EL 6 together.

Not much different from the current inflated XP problem. But now apply both changes.

Without the darkvision modifier, and using the above changes to Table 1–2, those hobgoblins would be CR 1/EL 1 each or EL 2 together.

Hopefully one of all of these solutions can solve the inflated XP problem at lower levels.


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 17, 2003)

Sigh.. one silly typo and the rest of my post means nothing.  And you haven't even addressed the points I made, that constitution helps protect against magical attack.  Do you not fight magical foes?  There is a lengthy thread/poll over in the rules forum about whether dex or con is the most imporant secondary stat for caster types, good info there.  I'm not argueing that dex helps more in melee combat (although I would still say con is better, but that is prehaps personal preference, as I prefer barbarians when doing a melee character).  I was saying that con is overall more useful for survival, especially against magical attacks (supernatural too, like breathweapons and gaze attacks).  Sure, in your fight against the 2 hobgoblins, dex might be your best chance for survival, but overal its con you have to worry about.

UK.  I'm fine, was being polite and everything, but that last comment was very offensive.. Implying that I revel in ignorance is the fastest way to get me angry.  Spent too much of my life in the pursuit of knowledge.

As for my threat of viscousness.. well... it could be implied that I meant that I would stick to him and follow him around annoying him.. hehe.. a good punishment on the message boards. 

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 17, 2003)

A few more quick questions...

What's the EL of a single CR ½ creature? EL ½?

And if I add +2 EL to a CR ½ creature, how do I calculate the final EL?

EL ½ + EL 2 = EL 2 ½? Round down to 2?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 17, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> And you haven't even addressed the points I made, that constitution helps protect against magical attack.



That’s because I didn't feel a need to address it. Fortitude saving throws aside, I still feel that a high Dexterity comes up during battle much more often and in ways that are far more useful to sorcerers or wizards than a high Constitution. For someone who is devoted to the "pursuit of knowledge" I can't help but notice that you overlooked every one of my supporting points made on that subject. The list of constantly used combat applications alone should be enough to persuade.


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 17, 2003)

Constantly aplicable?  If you avoid melee combat, and have protection from arrows, then AC means nothing.  

Initiative is rolled once a combat, and is not that important once the cycle starts (I know people that prefer lower initiatives so they can react instead of act).  

Ranged combat is about useless to a mage after a certain point when his base attack bonus garantees he'll miss, and ranged touch attacks either almost never miss (hitting slow, tough things) or miss just as easiliy as your regular attacks (monks, air elementals, ghosts, things that actually have decent touch acs tend to have _very_ good touch acs).  

There are very few reflex save attacks that don't deal damage and saving is only for half.  And when an attack deals damage, constituion is better.  It doesn't matter that you have a slightly higher chance of mitigating some of the damage from that fireball (or breath weapon or most other mass damage spells that you aren't necissarily the primary target of), eventually you'll fail one of those saves.  And without a decent con, that might be the last save you failed.  In fact, if it's coming from a similiar leveled wizard, it is _probably_ the last save you'll fail.  Your arguements that spells will protect you is true.. spells do protect from physical combat.  Why do you need dex for ac when your spells prevent you from ever getting hit?  Fly, or even alter self, and protection from arrows well protects you.  But supernatural effects, like spells and what not, are still dangerous.

I didn't over look your points, they are minor.  Magical attacks are a big portion of the game, and the more dangerous between physical and magical for mages.  Dex is trivial for the magical attacks, and Con protects against most attacks (will saves aside).

Eldorian Antar


----------



## S'mon (Apr 17, 2003)

Hi there Shalewind!  (U_K here)



			
				Shalewind said:
			
		

> *UK: Is your CR system open and ready for publish? I know you are still waiting for the next SRD update for the whole thing in ImHB, but I take it the CR system is ready to go? *




There are a few tweaks here and there and it will definately need a serious proofread, but more or less its good to go.

Its technically not 'open' as such just yet, but I don't mind people using it for personal use.

It will be OGL like much of the IH when its finally published.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 17, 2003)

Eldorian.

You just based your entire argument on a 3rd level wizard with _protection from arrows_. At 1st level, Twink is going to need Dexterity in order to reach 3rd level (alive). Please stick to the example in the future rather than changing the parameters of the debate.

-----

*Upper_Krust alert!*

I just tripped across Table 1–3. Don't know why I missed it before. If Twink (at CR1/EL1) defeats those two hobgoblins (at CR2 each/EL7 together) with the ease of my examples, he is going to earn a whopping 38400 XP with your system. If he already has 600 XP like I've been saying, he just flew from 1st to 9th level (heck, even without 600 XP).

Even with the two changes I recently suggested (making the hobgoblins CR1 each/EL2 together) Twink still nets 2400 XP (flying from 1st to 3rd level) which is right back where this problem started.

All because he was alone (EL –4 according to Table 1–3).

I really think you should reconsider calculating PEL as EL. Right now, I can't see any other solution.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 17, 2003)

Hey seasong mate!  (U_K here)



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Done?  I'll try to watch myself more carefully...*




Appreciate it dude. 

I wasn't singling out anyone earlier...just be cool and play nice...everyone is friends here and I want to keep it that way.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *More on topic, how's version 4 coming along? *




Well I haven't really added/changed much in the past week since I am in London, but I have added a few footnotes in my hard copy.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 17, 2003)

Hiya mate!  (U_K natch.)



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *As for my last comment (presumably to Anubis) if he can control his mouth, then so shall I. If he cannot, then I will be toning *nothing* down, regardless of your reputed "slipperiness".*




This is borderline behaviour and I don't want to hear any more jive like this from anyone. I'm not singling you out Kolja mate, I'm sure all concerned have given as good as they have got.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Of course, if the divine wrath of Upper_Krust parts the clouds to rain down holy fire, I will behave no matter what, but that is a matter of respect. *




If I perceive one more overtly venomous comment after tonight on this matter (I haven't checked all the remaining posts yet) then I'll be bringing it to the attention of the moderators and furthermore I won't be replying in future to comments made by that person. 

Either you keep it civil or take it out of my sight.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: A question about  Party EL and CR*

Hi there demiurgeastaroth!  (U_K here)



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Let's say you have a 4-man party of 20th level characters. Under this system:
> 
> What whould be a moderate encounter (CR+0)?*




CR 20



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *How many experience points would each member get for taking out a Titan (CR28)?*




20th-level party vs EL +2 Encounter gives 20 x 600 EXP (Total)

12,000 EXP divided by 4 = 3000 EXP each for defeating the Titan.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Here's my estimation of question 1, let me know if I'm right or wrong.
> 
> "The PEL is always their actual level divided by 4"
> 
> According to table 1-1A, the actual EL of the group is 18. The above quote suggests that PEL therefore equals 14 (this is where I fear I may be wrong).*




Party Level is Total Levels (CR) divided by the number of characters in the group. 

But Party Encounter Level (PEL) is the actual encounter level of the group; minus 4.

Remember that one 20th-level character is EL 18. So *four* 20th-level characters would be EL 22 (18 + 4 for having 4-5 characters).

But the PEL is always 4 less than the actual EL so a Party of 4-5 20th-level characters would be PEL 18.

A 20th-level PC on its own would be PEL 14.
Two 20th-level PCs would be PEL 16
Three 20th-level PCs would be PEL 17
Four or Five = PEL 18
etc. (as per the rules for multiple characters).



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *So an appropriate (moderate) challenge would be something that is EL14, for example a single CR 10 critter. That doesn't seem right.*




The easy way to determine a Challenge Rating is:

Party Level x 1 = Moderate (EL +0)
Party Level x 1.5 = Tough (EL +2)
Party Level x 2 = Difficult (EL +4)
Party Level x 3 = (EL +6)
Party Level x 4 = (EL +8)



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *If I'm misunderstanding that quote, and apply no modificaton, then the moderate encounter would be a CR20 critter, which seems reasonable. *




Thats right. 

Incidently I gotta go here, I'll be on early in the morning to catch up with therest of the posts.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 17, 2003)

*A question about  Party EL and CR*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Party Level is Total Levels (CR) divided by the number of characters in the group.
> 
> But Party Encounter Level (PEL) is the actual encounter level of the group; minus 4.
> 
> Remember that one 20th-level character is EL 18. So *four* 20th-level characters would be EL 22 (18 + 4 for having 4-5 characters).




Thanks for that clearing that up. I suggest putting in the final version a detailed example - showing the calculation of a Party Level, then PEL, then showing how much XP that same group would get from a specific encounter.

Darren


----------



## seasong (Apr 17, 2003)

Regarding PEL vs EL:

I originally got into the Twink discussion because the probabilities were wrong. In the process, I think I got lumped with the group who felt the PEL vs EL worked well at all levels, when I, personally, was undecided.

Let me repair that now .

A much better example is a single level 4 human fighter PC against a single level 3 human fighter NPC. All other things being equal, the level 4 fighter will win (although it will cost him in hit points). But at PEL 5 vs EL 7, he will get 2,400 XP for the encounter.

Now let's consider a level 20 fighter versus a level 15 fighter; the level 20 fighter is going to win again, although it will still cost him in hit points. And the PEL is 14 versus an EL 14: 12,000 XP.

That seems a bit off when you're stronger than the opponent.

And while I don't mind that kind of thing at the lower levels (where fast advancement is, to my mind, a good thing), it hurts at the higher levels where it continues to apply.

As another example, a cleric 5 and fighter 5 could fight a single level 4 fighter, and get 1,200 XP each. And if the fighter did most of the fighting, followed up by some healing from the cleric, they could do this a few times a day before low hit points forced them to stop... and then they could probably do some double-teaming together for 1 or 2 more times - talk about an XP machine!


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 17, 2003)

*Freaky XP at Low levels*

People have pointed out that the system produces wonky XP at very low levels. The DMG might have the solution. If you look at  experience table on page 166, 1st to 3rd level characters all receive the same XP.

I would suggest, for levels 1-20, referring the user to that experience chart, using PEL for Level, and enemy EL for CR, and recommending the formula only for higher levels. The XP totals for all but the low levels should be the same, since UK's system is based on the XP progression from that table.

Darren


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 17, 2003)

seasong said:
			
		

> ...a single level 4 human fighter PC against a single level 3 human fighter NPC. All other things being equal, the level 4 fighter will win (although it will cost him in hit points). But at PEL 5 vs EL 7, he will get 2,400 XP for the encounter.



If I'm not mistaken, the 4th level PC human fighter is EL9 (as for the 3rd level NPC fighter, EL5 is accurate assuming all things are rounded down). Meaning the XP reward should be 300 XP.

If Table 1–3 is factored into the equation, this example would change to EL5 versus PEL5 and 1200 XP for the PC.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> Now let's consider a level 20 fighter versus a level 15 fighter; the level 20 fighter is going to win again, although it will still cost him in hit points. And the PEL is 14 versus an EL 14: 12,000 XP.



Actually, if the PC is the 20th level fighter then their EL is 18. If the 15th level fighter is the NPC, then their EL is 16. That will only net 3000 XP for the PC.

If Table 1–3 is factored in the equation, this example would change to EL16 versus PEL14 and 12000 XP for the PC.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> As another example, a cleric 5 and fighter 5 could fight a single level 4 fighter, and get 1,200 XP each.



Well, PEL 10 for the pair (–2 according to Table 1–3) equals PEL8 versus EL7 (assuming the 4th level fighter is an NPC and we are rounding down) for a reward of 2250 XP.

Hopefully that offers some clarity on how to crunch the numbers.

This is also why I suggest calculating PEL as EL (at least as a start to fixing the problem).


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 17, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *A few more quick questions...
> 
> What's the EL of a single CR ½ creature? EL ½?
> *




I'd recommend using the official DMG method (substituting EL for the DMG's CR). When using fractional creatures, you calculate as if it was an EL1 creature, and then multiply XP earned by the fraction.




> *And if I add +2 EL to a CR ½ creature, how do I calculate the final EL?
> 
> EL ½ + EL 2 = EL 2 ½? Round down to 2? *




I'll have a go.

*Method 1*
Since +2 EL is equivalent to x2 opponents, just calculate XP normally and multiply the final total by x2

*Method 2*

Since a CR.5 creature is really CR 0 from a design POV, the CR becomes 0+2 = 2.

*Results*

Imagine (just for the sake of this example - since we dn't know how UK is going to resolve the low level XP totals) you get 300 xp from an EL 1 encounter. 

Based on the DMG method, A CR.5 creature would therefore give 150 XP.
Applying +2 EL to that creature by the two methods I suggest:

*Method 1* XP x 2 = 300.
*Method 2* Since EL2 is 1 higher than EL 1, you get 1.5x the XP of an EL1 encounter, or 450 XP.

I think Method 2 is correct. The difference is because UK breaks his own progression. To get an adjusted CR of 1/2, a creature should have a calculated CR of -3; 1/4 should be -7, etc. I'm sure he has a good reason for doing it this way, though.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 17, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *If I'm not mistaken, the 4th level PC human fighter is EL9. Meaning the XP reward should be 300 XP.
> 
> If Table 1–3 is factored in the equation, this example would change to EL5 versus PEL5 and 1200 XP for the PC.
> <snip>
> This is also why I suggest calculating PEL as EL (at least as a start to fixing the problem). *




I think the problem here is that:
1) you calculate average party level
2) you modify for group size
3) Calculate XP for group
4) Divide XP among group.

The group is being factored in twice (steps 2 & 4).

My suggestion: instead of giving a base award of 
*300xp x Level, divided among the group*
the base award should be
*75XP x Level each*

It complicates the calculations a bit, but I think it's actually the way it's supposed to work. When he included the PEL modifer for group size, UK probably overlooked this.

Darren


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 18, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Eldorian.
> 
> You just based your entire diatribe on a 3rd level wizard with protection from arrows. At 1st level, Twink is going to need Dexterity in order to reach 3rd level (alive). Please stick to the examples in the future rather than warping the debate to suit your own selective perceptions.
> 
> *




What??!?!?  You brought up protection from arrows.  Personally I've never had a problem with archers in a game.  You do *not* need dex to reach level 3 alive.  I've seen several mages do it without dex.  I'm just gonna stop acknowledging your existance.  Your posts don't attempt to argue, just to insult.  Selective perceptions indeed.  I'll show you selective perception...

Eldorian Antar

P.S.  Hey UK, hows gencon?  Having fun?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 18, 2003)

Eldorian.

I brought up _protection from arrows_ as an afterthought. I've been talking about Twink the whole time! There's your selective perception. Look, don't acknowledge my existence. That's great! It lets me get to the bottom of all these lower-level (and now apparantly higher-level) CR system problems without angering the Upper_Krust god by responding to people like ... well, you.


----------



## seasong (Apr 18, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman: Your CRs: Ack, thanks for pointing that out. I forgot the NPC wealth modifier. That does make it a bit more reasonable, but only by reducing the CR. A fighter 5 vs a CR 4 creature still has the same XP results as the ones I posted.

On the other hand, I think this is an area where I'm likely to adjust things to suit myself anyway .


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 18, 2003)

demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> It complicates the calculations a bit, but I think it's actually the way it's supposed to work. When he included the PEL modifer for group size, UK probably overlooked this.



Something about Table 1–3 does seem over simplified. But I'm not sure how to go about changing it until Upper_Krust can illuminate us on the mechanics he used (assuming, as always, that they are not arbitrary).


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 18, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Something about Table 1–3 does seem over simplified. But I'm not sure how to go about changing it until Upper_Krust can illuminate us on the mechanics he used (assuming, as always, that they are not arbitrary). *




In the standard DMG system, you use average party level to determine XP, then divide XP by the number of characters. So, if there is only one character, he gains 4x the XP that a group of 4 gains. However, the DMG includes no explicit system for deciding what challenges are appropriate for groups that differ from 4-5 members. 
UK's system gives a means of doing that (table 1-3), by modifying PEL. But since PEL is then used to calculate XP, a single character already gains 4x the XP of a standard group. There is no need to then divide by group size (applying that modifier twice, resulting in a single character getting 16x the standard group).

Example
_In standard DMG system, a group of 4 10th level characters against a CR10 monster will gain 750xp each. If there were 8 characters, they would gain 375xp.
In UK's system a PEL 10 group of 4 characters against an EL 10 critter would also gain 750 XP. (When PEL = EL, gain 300 x level / number of characters) But if there were 8 characters, their PEL would be raised to 12 (giving 150 x level = 1500), and then they would divide among 8 people (187.5)._

So, since the standard XP awards are based on the total being divided between 4 characters, the XP awards listed in table 1-5 should be divided by 4, and explicitly stated as being an individual award.

Darren


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 18, 2003)

Btw, sorry about getting off on a tangent.. Teach me to agree with Anubis.  Knew it was a bad idea, even if I did agree with him.


After reading demiurge's suggestion.. that looks like it might be right.  You factor the party size twice.. which may be causing the trouble.

Take the appendix table 1-5.  Divide all the experience awards by 4, and instead of total experience, it's experience per character.

Taking seasong's 4th level fighter vs 3rd level fighter example.

4th level fighter is PEL 5, the foe is an EL 7 encounter, so he should recieve 2400/4 = 600 XP.

If the same 4th level fighter teamed up with 3 of his 4th level mates, then:  PEL 9 vs EL 7, 600/4 = 150 exp each.  So he would earn one forth the XP he would have recieved for fighting it solo.

Taking the infamous 1st level character vs two CR 2 creatures.  That would be a PEL -3 vs an EL 7.  EXP 9600/4 = 2,400.  That seams a bit more reasonable.

The level 20 guy vs the level 15 guy..  PEL 14 vs EL 16.  EXP 12000/4= 3000.  

Same 20th level guy and his 3 mates, same 15 guy, PEL 18 vs EL 16, EXP 3000/4 = 750.

So you recieve four times the exp when you solo the fight, compared to if you had done the fight with your group of 4.


I believe that might be the problem, the double factoring of party size.  Good job demiurge.

Ya know, thinking about this, if we want to eleminate one of the factoring of party sizes, we could just do away with PEL and keep the EXP at current rate...  PEL is more difficult to factor.

Taking the level 4 party.  If we call both the party and the solo fighter as PEL 9.  Against the EL 7 3rd level fighter, they would recieve 600 exp divided amonst themselves.  If the fighter was solo, he'd get it all, and if he was with 3 party members, it would be 150.  

However, this doesn't properly represent the PEL to EL qualitative descriptions, as seen on table 1-4.

Thing is, you gotta ask yourself, "Self, how much EXP is a 50/50 fight worth?"

If the fight is 4 on 4, all same CRs, PEL X vs EL X+4, then the answer is average PC level times 1200, total, so average PC level times 300, each.

If the fight is one on one, same CRs, PEL X-4 vs EL X, then the answer is PC level times 1200 by current reconing, or PC level times 300 by proposed change.

It's my thinking that any individual involved in a fight with a 50/50 chance of winning deserves the same exp, no matter if he was alone or with his friends.

Once again, I think demiurge solved the problem, and it wasn't with just low levels.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 18, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> Ya know, thinking about this, if we want to eleminate one of the factoring of party sizes, we could just do away with PEL and keep the EXP at current rate...  PEL is more difficult to factor.
> 
> Eldorian Antar [/B]




This method would eliminate having lots of ugly fractions in Table 1-5 (for example, the -4 result would not need to change from 75 to 18.75).

PEL could still be included, introduced in the section containing Table 1-4, allowing GMs to gauge the strength of enemies against heir PC group. I'd suggest swapping the order of 1-5 and 1-4 though, so XP calculation is shown before introducing PEL, to avoid the possibility of people accidentally using it in XP calculations.

Darren
PS thanks for the acknowledgement.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 18, 2003)

*Power Comparisons*

The Power Comparison table (Table 1-4) uses the same classifications as in the DMG, but I'm wondering if the relationship is really as decsribed, in UK's system.

According to table 1-4, a creature of EL+4 above the PEL is a Difficult encounter - "virtually equal to the PCs in power."

Take a group of 10th level characters (PEL14). An EL18 encounter would be the upper end of Difficult for them, apparently roughly equal in power. 
4 NPCs of 10th level would work out as EL17, and since NPCs are weaker than PCs this seems OK. 
6 NPCs of the same level would be EL18, and that is probably OK. So far, so good.
But then, 3 14th level NPCs are also EL18, and I think that would be a very difficult fight - and may not be winnable.

A single NPC of 20th level (CR18) with a 14th level sidekick (+12.5% of 18 = 2.25) gives an EL 18 encounter.
If the BBEG dumped the follower, he could be of level 23-26 (Multiplied by .9 for NPC equipment).
I think both of these two examples are very likely to lead to TPK.

I'm not saying the system is broken, but I am concerned that the difference in power between characters as EL rises might be a lot higher than people are used to with the standard CR system and that changing that descriptive table might be called for.

Darren


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Power Comparisons*

Speaking of the infamous 1st level character faced off against two CR 2 creatures, you are correct Eldorian (in that the 1st level character would be worth PEL –3 and that the two CR 2 creatures are worth EL 7). My initial XP assessment was flawed. I doubled the last line rather than two rows previous; 9600 XP is entirely correct.

But my concern remains the same. Do I add CR modifiers to a monster that advances as a character class (assuming their total racial modifier does not exceed +0.5)? Or do I not?

If I do not add the CR modifiers, the above example falls to PEL –3 and EL 3 for 2400/4 = 600 XP (using demiurgeastaroth's revisions) for a solo defeat... (which seems a lot more reasonable to me than 2400 XP for defeating two 2nd level fighter hobgoblins).

...or...

A party of four with PEL 1 and the same EL 3 hobgoblin opponents for 600 XP (or 150 for each member).


----------



## S'mon (Apr 18, 2003)

Hi all!  (U_K here)

Its going to be a seemingly impossible task catching up with all the replies today, since I have to go to Gencon UK shortly.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.
> 
> I'm trying to make sense of your mixed opponent rules.
> 
> ...




Okay. 

Remember the base unit = 100% (in the example the base unit is EL 24).

The total Rating (including all the devils) is 241.6%.

That means you have the base unit x 2.416.

We know that adding two characters the same increases EL by 2 and adding three increases the EL by 3.

Obviously x2 (the .416 is irrelevant in this example) is the same as *Two* monsters equal to the base unit.

Two EL 24 monsters = EL 26.

Hope that helps mate.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 18, 2003)

Hello!  (U_K here)



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.
> 
> If you can give me a definite answer on this subject ... that would be great.
> 
> ...




Your above solution breaks the system mantra.

Personally I don't see the problem in the amount of EXP given out (because the CRs are correct), but rather that the fragility of characters at low levels extends to NPCs as well. 

A solution (if I eventually deem one necessary?) might be something akin to WotCs fixed EXP rate at low levels.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 18, 2003)

(U_K here)



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *kUpper_Krust alert!
> 
> I just tripped across Table 1–3. Don't know why I missed it before. If Twink (at CR1/EL1) defeats those two hobgoblins (at CR2 each/EL7 together) with the ease of my examples, he is going to earn a whopping 38400 XP with your system.*




Actually he would earn 2400 EXP.

1st-level EXP 300 x 8 (EL +6)



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *If he already has 600 XP like I've been saying, he just flew from 1st to 9th level (heck, even without 600 XP).*




More like 1st to 2nd, and thats provided the DM rated it at its highest CR and didn't impose any situational modifiers for an easy (?) victory.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Even with the two changes I recently suggested (making the hobgoblins CR1 each/EL2 together) Twink still nets 2400 XP (flying from 1st to 3rd level) which is right back where this problem started.
> 
> All because he was alone (EL –4 according to Table 1–3).
> 
> I really think you should reconsider calculating PEL as EL. Right now, I can't see any other solution. *




As I said, the ELs are correct, the EXP is correct.

The problem is the fragility of low level NPCs (and PCs) allowing for situations like this to occur.

While this is something that can be policed by the DM with situational modifiers, I will either have to extend that particular section of the rules or add a caveat (much as WotC do) reducing very low level EXP gains.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: A question about  Party EL and CR*

Hello again!  (U_K here)



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Thanks for that clearing that up. I suggest putting in the final version a detailed example - showing the calculation of a Party Level, then PEL, then showing how much XP that same group would get from a specific encounter.*




Will do. Thanks for the feedback mate!


----------



## S'mon (Apr 18, 2003)

Hello!  (U_K here)



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Regarding PEL vs EL:
> 
> I originally got into the Twink discussion because the probabilities were wrong. In the process, I think I got lumped with the group who felt the PEL vs EL worked well at all levels, when I, personally, was undecided.
> 
> ...




The NPC Fighter will be CR 2 (EL 5).

He would only get 1200 EXP.

Against that there is always the chance that a few bad dice rolls and it all ends in tears.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Now let's consider a level 20 fighter versus a level 15 fighter; the level 20 fighter is going to win again, although it will still cost him in hit points. And the PEL is 14 versus an EL 14: 12,000 XP.
> 
> That seems a bit off when you're stronger than the opponent.*




I think you meant to put EL 16 for the 15th-level Fighter (with PC equipment).

A 15th-level NPC would be CR 13.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *And while I don't mind that kind of thing at the lower levels (where fast advancement is, to my mind, a good thing), it hurts at the higher levels where it continues to apply.*




Though one or two bad dice rolls and the 15th-level Fighter (with PC equipment lets remember) could defeat the 20th-level Fighter.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *As another example, a cleric 5 and fighter 5 could fight a single level 4 fighter, and get 1,200 XP each. And if the fighter did most of the fighting, followed up by some healing from the cleric, they could do this a few times a day before low hit points forced them to stop... and then they could probably do some double-teaming together for 1 or 2 more times - talk about an XP machine! *




I could envision this happening once, or at most twice before your luck runs out and the 4th-level Fighter flukes a crit or somesuch.

Also remember that a 4th-level NPC Fighter would be CR 3 so the EXP would be 750 each.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Freaky XP at Low levels*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *People have pointed out that the system produces wonky XP at very low levels.*




The EXP is right. The problem is the fragility of low level characters in general.

Of course this works both for and against the PCs, in that a bit of bad luck and they are just as dead.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The DMG might have the solution. If you look at  experience table on page 166, 1st to 3rd level characters all receive the same XP.
> 
> I would suggest, for levels 1-20, referring the user to that experience chart, using PEL for Level, and enemy EL for CR, and recommending the formula only for higher levels. The XP totals for all but the low levels should be the same, since UK's system is based on the XP progression from that table. *




Thats what I was also thinking might solve any perceived problems.

I'll consider it over the next week.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 18, 2003)

Okay I am rushing through these...



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I'd recommend using the official DMG method (substituting EL for the DMG's CR). When using fractional creatures, you calculate as if it was an EL1 creature, and then multiply XP earned by the fraction.
> 
> I'll have a go.
> 
> ...




CR 1/2 = EL -1

Why...because doubling the number of opponents is +2, so halving them is therefore -2.

CR 1/4 = EL -3
CR 1/8 = EL -5

etc.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 18, 2003)

demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I think the problem here is that:
> 1) you calculate average party level
> 2) you modify for group size
> 3) Calculate XP for group
> ...




Sounds interesting, and plausible.

I'll mull this over for a day or two. It would seem to solve the perceived problem without an extensive rewrite.

Appreciate the feedback all!


----------



## S'mon (Apr 18, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *P.S.  Hey UK, hows gencon?  Having fun? *




It starts today and I'm not there yet because I'm replying in this forum.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 18, 2003)

Hello mate!  (U_K here)



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *In the standard DMG system, you use average party level to determine XP, then divide XP by the number of characters. So, if there is only one character, he gains 4x the XP that a group of 4 gains. However, the DMG includes no explicit system for deciding what challenges are appropriate for groups that differ from 4-5 members.
> UK's system gives a means of doing that (table 1-3), by modifying PEL. But since PEL is then used to calculate XP, a single character already gains 4x the XP of a standard group. There is no need to then divide by group size (applying that modifier twice, resulting in a single character getting 16x the standard group).
> 
> Example
> ...




I also find myself agreeing with your recent revelation.

I do seem to be calculating the same thing twice. DOH! 

Glad we got that sorted and now I can go to Gencon. 

Appreciate the feedback all! Couldn't have done it without you.

Not sure if I will be on the boards at all over the next few days while at Gencon (?). Normal service will however resume as of Monday night. 

In the meantime if anyone wants to put Demiurges suggestions through their paces (and save me the trouble of doing it on Monday  ) then by all means go ahead.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Power Comparisons*

One more before I go... 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The Power Comparison table (Table 1-4) uses the same classifications as in the DMG, but I'm wondering if the relationship is really as decsribed, in UK's system.
> 
> According to table 1-4, a creature of EL+4 above the PEL is a Difficult encounter - "virtually equal to the PCs in power."
> 
> ...




EL +4 is a 50/50 encounter. 

The outcome would hang in the balance as it were.

But there may be something to your claims, I appreciate all constructive feedback, so if you see anything that looks 'wrong' let me know. Thanks.


----------



## seasong (Apr 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Upper Krust as S'Mon_
> Actually he would earn 2400 EXP.
> 
> 1st-level EXP 300 x 8 (EL +6)



For all intents and purposes, it looks like this should be PEL +10:

Twink: Level 1. Alone. EL 1, -4 for being alone = PEL -3
Hobgob: Level 2. EL 5. Two of them = EL 7
Difference = +10

The XP I count for that is 9,600, which is good enough to jump from 1st to 4th, and be 400 XP away from 5th.

Now, on page 1, it tells us that a negative CR turns into a fractional CR. That is, a CR -3 becomes CR 1/16th. It does not specify that this also applies to EL (or PEL), however, and throughout the rules we are told that CR and EL are two different things.

On Table 1-1A, then, we get to how to calculate EL from CR. Twink the Wizard's CR is definitely 1, so that gives him an EL of 1. Then, on Table 1-3, we are told that being alone drops his PEL by -4.

At no point are we told that there is a minimum PEL of 0(remember, don't treat or assume that EL/PEL is like CR!), or that negative PELs should be translated into fractions, etc. Nor does it necessarily make much sense to. A level 1 party of 4 who kill a single CR 1/16th ant should get XP for defeating a PEL -4 threat (19 XP each), not a PEL -1 threat (50 XP). Otherwise, why bother to fight a CR 1/4 or 1/2 creature? You'll get the same XP from the small fries.


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 18, 2003)

What remains to be seen is if UK will decide to drop the whole PEL notion, or if he decides to keep it and instead divide exp rewards by 4 and make them per participant.  I think me and demiurge agree that dropping PEL, or moving it to after exp considerations for the qualitative comparison of ELs, is the favorable notion, due to the ease of exp calculation this would bring.  As it was, the PEL took several reads through to understand for me, and for most of us considering how much disinformation was floating around.  I'm gonna put my vote in for moving PEL to after exp considerations.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 18, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *Hello mate!  (U_K here)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




All ready put it through it's paces, with a bunch of examples.  I think we got it now.  See previous post for consideration on how we're gonna use what we got. (ie, which factor of party size we kill)

Eldorian Antar
P.S enjoy gencon, hopefully I'll get to go to one, one of these days.


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 18, 2003)

seasong said:
			
		

> *For all intents and purposes, it looks like this should be PEL +10:
> 
> Twink: Level 1. Alone. EL 1, -4 for being alone = PEL -3
> Hobgob: Level 2. EL 5. Two of them = EL 7
> ...





It is a 10 encounter level difference.  If you use suggestion A and reduce all exp awards by 4, making them individual awards, then it's 2400 exp.  If you use suggestion B and consider the character an EL 1 for the calculations, it's also 2400 exp.  Both would bump him up to within 600 xp of 3rd level, which is reasonable for a +10 EL fight.

Eldorian Antar

P.S.  Do some calculations with the old system and an 8 person party.  I'm at school or I would.  I'm betting you'd level at half the rate, for the same difficulty of encounters.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 18, 2003)

Hi all!  (U_K here)

I have a few minutes...

I was at Euro Gencon today (albeit briefly), had a great time, met Morrus (among others), bought some stuff (Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of the Righteous), attended a seminar and generally loafed around, tomorrow and sunday I'll get playing some games as well.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *What remains to be seen is if UK will decide to drop the whole PEL notion, or if he decides to keep it and instead divide exp rewards by 4 and make them per participant.  I think me and demiurge agree that dropping PEL, or moving it to after exp considerations for the qualitative comparison of ELs, is the favorable notion, due to the ease of exp calculation this would bring.  As it was, the PEL took several reads through to understand for me, and for most of us considering how much disinformation was floating around.  I'm gonna put my vote in for moving PEL to after exp considerations.*




Obviously I won't be making any decisions until after this weekend and I can turn my full attention to the problem. 

But obviously simplicity is the keyword here. So any changes will bear that in mind.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (Apr 19, 2003)

Hey U_K!

What do you think of The Book of Vile Darkness? And what is the Book of the Righteous?


----------



## Zaknafein (Apr 19, 2003)

*looks preety*

but out of curiosity i was wondering do you have a more updated list of monsters and their new cr's?  thanks... and i am really going to like to implement this to my game session.

-in honor zaknafein


----------



## S'mon (Apr 19, 2003)

Only have a few minutes here...



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Hey U_K! *




Hi Dark Wolf mate!  (U_K here)



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *What do you think of The Book of Vile Darkness? *




Well I have only had a few hours with it and the only chapter I have fully read to date is the Arch-fiends Chapter.

To be honest I like everything I have seen except for the Arch-fiends section which has so many flaws and such incongruous art that its probably the most disappointed I have ever been with regards a 3rd Ed. product (since that was my primary reason for buying it).

I mean if you ever needed evidence that the current CR rules were totally and utterly nonsensical you could use that chapter as proof positive.

I mean Demogorgon has 11 servants listed with CRs higher than Graz'zt! 

Additionally the treatments of the Arch-fiends is very poor, with regards previous iterations.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *And what is the Book of the Righteous?  *




Its one of Green Ronins products - I am sure they have details over on their site.

I'll talk more about both as and when I get the time to both read them and post herein.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: looks preety*

Hi there Zaknafein!  (U_K here)



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *but out of curiosity i was wondering do you have a more updated list of monsters and their new cr's?  thanks... and i am really going to like to implement this to my game session. *




Do you mean more Monster Manual Monsters CRs (?) or a more up to date challenge ratings of those I have already listed?

If its the latter, no, because they are more or less accurate and haven't needed updating with the minor changes we have made since Version 3.

Though I will probably double check them all for Version 4.

Not sure listing a revised CR for every monster in the monster manual (or elsewhere)is my goal, which is why I sought to provide people with the tools to do so myself.

I dunno, are people looking for more, if so anything specific.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 19, 2003)

Well I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm still trying to get a definitive answer as to whether or not you mean to add racial CR modifiers (like darkvision) to a monster (like hobgoblins) that advances as a character class (if their total racial modifier does not exceed +0.5)?


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 19, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Well I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm still trying to get a definitive answer as to whether or not you mean to add racial CR modifiers (like darkvision) to a monster (like hobgoblins) that advances as a character class (if their total racial modifier does not exceed +0.5)? *




I would say yes (though obviously that isn't official).
Taking it to extreme: if you have a dragon of (say) CR 30, and add 10 levels of fighter, you would obviously increase it's CR by that benefit.
The difference between the dragon and the hobgoblin is only one of degree (though your players may see it differently if you accidentally use the wrong one).

Darren


----------



## Zaknafein (Apr 19, 2003)

*racial CR adjustments*

U_K I was reffering to monsters out of the MM & MM2 but if it has not been done, no biggie.... I was also curious about Racial bonuses for races such as Human, elf, halfelv, etc.  I know humans get a free feat and extra skills.... those would also get added to their new CR modifier, correct?

-in honor zaknafein


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: racial CR adjustments*



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *I was also curious about Racial bonuses for races such as Human, elf, halfelv, etc.  I know humans get a free feat and extra skills.... those would also get added to their new CR modifier, correct?
> 
> -in honor zaknafein *




That's a good point, and relevant to Sonafapreacherman's hobgoblin question.
Probably the best way is to assume that if the base racial CR is 0 or less (ECL 0 races) you ignore things like darkvision etc - assume it all balances out. Humans have their feat and skill points, hobgoblins have their stats and darkvision, etc.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 19, 2003)

*ECL calculation*

One major flaw I feel with the system is the idea that ECL can be calculated much the same as CR.
As it stands Fast Healing and Regeneration cost extra if you are designing ECL, butr many other abilities should also be rated higher. Anything spell-like ability which can be used at will is a limited benefit to opponents, since they only get to use them in that encounter (and it's a toss up among which ability or attack to use in a very limited time frame), but for PCs they provide massive flexibility. They may be used repeatedly in the same day, in or out of combat. 
Even worse are things like Gaze attacks (and other free actions). An extra quickened spell, raised to an area effect, used every round!

(Monte Cook discusses this at http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly11.html)

Personally, I think you should have one set of modifiers for CR, and a completely different set for ECL.

Darren


----------



## S'mon (Apr 19, 2003)

Hiya mate!  (U_K here)



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Well I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm still trying to get a definitive answer as to whether or not you mean to add racial CR modifiers (like darkvision) to a monster (like hobgoblins) that advances as a character class (if their total racial modifier does not exceed +0.5)? *




...oops sorry, I must have missed your initial probe in all the hubbub.

Personally I think it works both ways, but I think for consistency it might be better to factor it on.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: racial CR adjustments*

Hello again Zaknafein mate!  (U_K here)



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *U_K I was reffering to monsters out of the MM & MM2 but if it has not been done, no biggie.... *




I have revised every monster from MM1 and a few of the higher CR monsters from MM2. 

Of course the question is how much space do you want to devote to a list of revised CRs...? It would probably take a further two pages to detail all the MM CRs.



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *I was also curious about Racial bonuses for races such as Human, elf, halfelv, etc.  I know humans get a free feat and extra skills.... those would also get added to their new CR modifier, correct? *




Yes. 

Although since you always round down and the core races always bestow less than +0.5 anyway they generally never need factored to PC CRs.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: Re: racial CR adjustments*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *I have revised every monster from MM1 and a few of the higher CR monsters from MM2.
> 
> Of course the question is how much space do you want to devote to a list of revised CRs...? It would probably take a further two pages to detail all the MM CRs.
> *




It's a pdf - I vote for the extra pages. We don't have to print them.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: Re: racial CR adjustments*

Though whether or not you do include the full CR list, you might want to change the layout of the currect CR tables a little. I wasn't aware Titans were a subtype of Slaad, or that there were so many golems in the Epic book...  

Darren


----------



## S'mon (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: ECL calculation*

Hi demiurgeastaroth mate!  (U_K natch)



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *One major flaw I feel with the system is the idea that ECL can be calculated much the same as CR.*




Thats not really the focus of the material but I am sure if I turned my gaze upon it I could sharpen that portion of the system.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *As it stands Fast Healing and Regeneration cost extra if you are designing ECL, *




Indeed. Primarily because they are time based.

Incidently I may be tweaking Regeneration to return it to parity with Fast Healing. I have also been toying with the idea that Regeneration should actually be supernatural. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *butr many other abilities should also be rated higher. Anything spell-like ability which can be used at will is a limited benefit to opponents, since they only get to use them in that encounter (and it's a toss up among which ability or attack to use in a very limited time frame), but for PCs they provide massive flexibility. They may be used repeatedly in the same day, in or out of combat.*




The way I have been considering handling this is possibly doubling 'At Will' SLA for ECL. What do you think?

Regarding Spell-like abilities I may also be merging the 'At Will' and 'Always Active' factors. Since the former actually allows you to cast it on another subject as well as practically have it always active.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Even worse are things like Gaze attacks (and other free actions). An extra quickened spell, raised to an area effect, used every round!*




I may have rated the base Gaze Attack either 0.4 or 0.8 too low.

It should perhaps be +1.6 or +2.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *(Monte Cook discusses this at http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly11.html)*




I think I have read this article before...

Monte makes some good points but it primarily revolves around WotCs CR rules not mine. 

Secondly, a lot of the stuff he points out can easily be gained through spells and magic items something which 3rd Ed. delivers in spades. 

Thirdly I already factor ability scores to ECL.

Fourthly, rated by my system, when you factor in PC wealth on top of monster powers they are going to ascend again.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Personally, I think you should have one set of modifiers for CR, and a completely different set for ECL. *




I don't think you have to go that far, CR and EL overlap 99% of the time. Its simply that 1% we have to watch out for.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: racial CR adjustments*

Hello again mate!  (U_K)



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *It's a pdf - I vote for the extra pages. We don't have to print them. *




 

The annoyance for me is that I have actually revised them all not so long ago but a few changes to the CR mods and you have to go back and do the whole thing over again. 

Also I would like to keep the Immortals Handbook under a thousand pages, pdf or not. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Though whether or not you do include the full CR list, you might want to change the layout of the currect CR tables a little. I wasn't aware Titans were a subtype of Slaad, or that there were so many golems in the Epic book...*




Admittedly thats more a question of trying to squeeze as many in as possible. 

I have been toying with the idea of a monster manual (low CRs to high CRs, rather that alphabetical - for the most) is more appropriate but of course this then messes with the Epic CRs (in that its practically a new CR per monster) so I don't know yet what to do for the best.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: Re: ECL calculation*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Hi demiurgeastaroth mate!  (U_K natch)
> Incidently I may be tweaking Regeneration to return it to parity with Fast Healing. I have also been toying with the idea that Regeneration should actually be supernatural.
> *




I think it probably should, too - that would certainly justify making them equal cost. 



> *
> <about at will ECL>
> The way I have been considering handling this is possibly doubling 'At Will' SLA for ECL. What do you think?
> *





This sounds reasonable (caveat: that's without testing ).
But I think there is a problem with the way the spell-like abilities are costed: the caster level is part of the formula. With many abilities, this may not be appropriate. For spells like teleport, for example, the level makes very little difference once you have the ability.
Only those abilities where the level has a direct effect (damage rolls, spell penetration, and to a much, much lesser effect (especially for multiple use abilities) duration) should this be a factor.
For such abilities, maybe the scroll cost could be a guidelines: use the minimum caster level the ability becomes available.

_ *Quirky Example*
Note: Teleport without error at will, +.3 at 13th level ability. 
Increase movement by 30': +.3 
I know that teleport has a few drawbacks (can't be used to attack in the same turn (unless they take quicken spell-like ability...), but I think it might be worth a lot more than 30' of movement... 
_



> *
> Regarding Spell-like abilities I may also be merging the 'At Will' and 'Always Active' factors. Since the former actually allows you to cast it on another subject as well as practically have it always active.
> *





Yes, At Will is for all intents and purposes Always Active - _and_ you get to use it on others. If anything, it should cost more.




> *
> I may have rated the base Gaze Attack either 0.4 or 0.8 too low.
> 
> It should perhaps be +1.6 or +2.
> *





That's quite a difference  Not that I'm arguing.



> *
> <about Monte's article>
> I think I have read this article before...
> 
> ...





That's true, but the points he makes are valid for both even if the method differs.



> *
> Secondly, a lot of the stuff he points out can easily be gained through spells and magic items something which 3rd Ed. delivers in spades.
> *





I don't think this is necessarily a strong equipment, especially for equipment, since for every item other players have to supply that power, the monster-character has a free slot (or money not spent on that item) to spend on other things of equal power. 



> *
> Thirdly I already factor ability scores to ECL.
> *





I'm in the camp that leans towards factoring them into CR...

In the article, you mention that it balances if all other things are treated equally, but I don't think this is the case. One creature may have very high stats (STR and CON being popular) while another has less powerful stats but various spell-like abilities and powers to make up for it. 
A large part of the danger posed by giants (for example) comes about entirely because of their high STR and CON (which are usually notably higher than the bonuses gained just from size). 



> *
> Fourthly, rated by my system, when you factor in PC wealth on top of monster powers they are going to ascend again.
> *





This is true, but on its own is not enough. 

I just worked out an Ogre, and his ECL came out at 6 (including 6 levels of equipment). I made a mistake, in that I counted all his stats, including the size increase, so it should be a lower ECL. But assuming 6:

A 10th level Barbarian with 17 STR (including his two raises) and 14 CON would have a BAB of +13, inflict 1d12+4 damage, and has 90 hit points without magic items and feats. 
(It's appropriate to ignore them, since they both get equal - or nearly equal - selections and are ikely to pick the same things.)

A 4th level Barbarian Ogre would have STR 27 and CON 18, giving him a BAB of +15, inflicting 1d12+12, and has 79 or 81 hit points (depending on whether he gets the d8 or d12 hit die maximised).

On the face of it, these look roughly comparable. The Ogre hits more often (possibly allowing him to make better use of power attack), does twice as much damage (that ratio will fall once magic weapons are included, but it will still be significantly higher), for the cost of falling after 8 hits as opposed to 9. Plus Reach, benefits with grapples, and all that.

Considering the ECL by the system is probably less than 6, it falls short under the current rules. Admittedly it's only one example, but it's examples like this it has to work for.



> *
> <my suggestion of a completely different system>
> I don't think you have to go that far, CR and EL overlap 99% of the time. Its simply that 1% we have to watch out for. *




Yes, I don't think I meant what I said  But I think the number of abilities that require a different total is a lot higher than 1%. (Exactly how much higher, I don't know.)

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 19, 2003)

*Re: racial CR adjustments*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Hello again mate!  (U_K)
> *




Hello!

*



			The annoyance for me is that I have actually revised them all not so long ago but a few changes to the CR mods and you have to go back and do the whole thing over again. 

Click to expand...


*
I would have put them all in a spreadsheet as I worked them out, and then just changed the base data table - get everything updated automatically! 

*



			Also I would like to keep the Immortals Handbook under a thousand pages, pdf or not. 

Click to expand...


*
If you've done the work, you should really distribute it to save others. Maybe a promotional web enhancement might be the ticket.

*



			I have been toying with the idea of a monster manual (low CRs to high CRs, rather that alphabetical - for the most) is more appropriate but of course this then messes with the Epic CRs (in that its practically a new CR per monster) so I don't know yet what to do for the best.
		
Click to expand...


*
Maybe I'm tired, but that paragraph looks garbled to me. 
Um, could you rephrase?

Darren


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation*

Hey demiurgeastaroth mate!  (U_K here)



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I think it probably should, too - that would certainly justify making them equal cost. *




Indeed.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *This sounds reasonable (caveat: that's without testing ).
> But I think there is a problem with the way the spell-like abilities are costed: the caster level is part of the formula. With many abilities, this may not be appropriate. For spells like teleport, for example, the level makes very little difference once you have the ability.*




Doesn't teleport allow additional weight to be carried dependant upon caster level...?



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Only those abilities where the level has a direct effect (damage rolls, spell penetration, and to a much, much lesser effect (especially for multiple use abilities) duration) should this be a factor.*




Not necessarily, because remember there is always the dispelling factor to consider.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *For such abilities, maybe the scroll cost could be a guidelines: use the minimum caster level the ability becomes available.*




I'll have a think about it.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> * Quirky Example
> Note: Teleport without error at will, +.3 at 13th level ability.
> Increase movement by 30': +.3
> 
> ...




Lets remember the design parameters though.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Yes, At Will is for all intents and purposes Always Active - and you get to use it on others. If anything, it should cost more.*




Well, remember that if dispelled it returns automatically without requiring an action.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *That's quite a difference  Not that I'm arguing.*




Its a tricky one, I'll have to give the matter some thought.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *That's true, but the points he makes are valid for both even if the method differs.*




Not entirely, given my CR/EL relationship.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I don't think this is necessarily a strong equipment, especially for equipment, since for every item other players have to supply that power, the monster-character has a free slot (or money not spent on that item) to spend on other things of equal power.*




True, but he can't say on the one hand be careful about flying characters when on the other that capability can be gained very early in a characters career.

Whereas something like Fast Healing or Regeneration is not so easily acquired.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I'm in the camp that leans towards factoring them into CR...*




Obviously that gives more accurate results, but we determined that it technically wasn't necessary and therefore extreneous.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *In the article, you mention that it balances if all other things are treated equally, but I don't think this is the case. One creature may have very high stats (STR and CON being popular) while another has less powerful stats but various spell-like abilities and powers to make up for it. *




All of which is quantified by the system.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *A large part of the danger posed by giants (for example) comes about entirely because of their high STR and CON (which are usually notably higher than the bonuses gained just from size).*




Ability scores are already factored into the size modifier



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *This is true, but on its own is not enough.
> 
> I just worked out an Ogre, and his ECL came out at 6 (including 6 levels of equipment). I made a mistake, in that I counted all his stats, including the size increase, so it should be a lower ECL. But assuming 6:*




Factoring the ogres ability scores means deducting +1 from size.

Since the size also factors Str +8; Con +4 and Dex -2 (Total +10)



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *A 10th level Barbarian with 17 STR (including his two raises) and 14 CON would have a BAB of +13, inflict 1d12+4 damage, and has 90 hit points without magic items and feats.
> (It's appropriate to ignore them, since they both get equal - or nearly equal - selections and are ikely to pick the same things.)
> 
> A 4th level Barbarian Ogre would have STR 27 and CON 18, giving him a BAB of +15, inflicting 1d12+12, and has 79 or 81 hit points (depending on whether he gets the d8 or d12 hit die maximised).
> ...




The Ogres ECL is probably 5 (off the top of my head).

As far as I can see it balances pretty well with a 5th-level character.

Of course there is always the problem of getting ogre sized magic items (notably weapons).



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Yes, I don't think I meant what I said  But I think the number of abilities that require a different total is a lot higher than 1%. (Exactly how much higher, I don't know.) *




Well after Fast Healing and Regeneration the only hurdle seems to be certain applications of spell-like abilities.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: racial CR adjustments*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Hello!*




Hello again mate!  (U_K)



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I would have put them all in a spreadsheet as I worked them out, and then just changed the base data table - get everything updated automatically!*




It sounds good in hindsight...  



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *If you've done the work, you should really distribute it to save others. Maybe a promotional web enhancement might be the ticket.*




I'll type it up in a day or so when I get the chance to see how it looks.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Maybe I'm tired, but that paragraph looks garbled to me.
> Um, could you rephrase? *




Okay. In the back of the monster manual they outline the monsters by Challenge Rating. Going from the lowest CR to the highest CRs.

I was thinking of doing my revisions like that, but then of course you have to look for the monster you want, so it slows you down...yadda yadda yadda.


----------



## Zaknafein (Apr 20, 2003)

*A few class questions?*

Was curious if these enhancements due to *Level progression* would make their CR higher:

Monks/Barbarian movement 
Paladins Immunity to disease 
Monks Immunity to poison
Paladins Special Mount (such as pegasus)
Wizards/Sorcerers Familiar (giving them Alertness plus other perks)
Assasins use of poison
Assasins use of death strike
etc.

thanks in advance.... 

-in honor zaknafein


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 20, 2003)

Upper_Krust.

So if the hobgoblins factor racial abilities like darkvision into their CR, then let's take a look at a 2nd level party of four going up against four 2nd level fighter hobgoblins.

The player characters = PEL 2.
Hobgoblins = PEL 9

That's a difference of +7. By your rules, this is near the higher end of a "very difficult/nemesis" encounter.

In truth, those hobgoblins should represent a "moderate/elite footsolder" encounter. They are 1 step above a typical hobgoblin footsoldier. They certainly shouldn't be any stronger than a "difficult/henchmen" encounter. But a nemesis encounter? Not even close.

The 2nd level player characters would net 1800 XP each for this encounter. That's exactly 3 times more XP than the 3rd edition CR/XP system (600 XP) awards for the same encounter!

Again, this is "if" you factor in darkvision.

If you do not, the player characters earn much less XP.

The player character = PEL 2.
Hobgoblins = PEL 5

That's a difference of +3 or 450 XP each. I think that's infinitely more reasonable than 1800 XP, even if and rather because its lower than the WotC amount.

If you still want to factor in racial abilities like darvision for "consistency", then we get back to my original suggestion; calculating PEL as EL.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.
> 
> So if the hobgoblins factor racial abilities like darkvision into their CR, then let's take a look at a 2nd level party of four going up against four 2nd level fighter hobgoblins.
> 
> ...




I'm not UpperKrust, but I can see where you went wrong there.

To get the Hobgoblins PEL of 9, you had to compare the CR of the hobgoblins 9 on the CR/EL chart.

In order to find the PEL of the player group, you need to do the same - compare their CR (which equals their level) on the same table (then, if the group modifier isn't abandoned, modify for group size but in this case that can be ignored).
A group of Level 2 characters have a CR of 2, 
therefore their EL is 5.

This would mean XP cost would be 1800XP total, or 450 each.

[/B][/QUOTE]
If you do not, the player characters earn much less XP.

The player character = PEL 2.
Hobgoblins = PEL 5

[/B][/QUOTE]
Darkvision is only a +.2 modifier, isn't it? How does it make the Hobgoblin EL jump from 5 to 9?


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Hey demiurgeastaroth mate!  (U_K here)
> 
> Doesn't teleport allow additional weight to be carried dependant upon caster level...?
> 
> *



It does (and I hadn't considered that!)...


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: ECL calculation*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Originally posted by demiurgeastaroth
> Quirky Example
> ...




In what sense?


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: ECL calculation agreements*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Originally posted by demiurgeastaroth
> ...




Good point.

*




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demiurgeastaroth 
Yes, At Will is for all intents and purposes Always Active - and you get to use it on others. If anything, it should cost more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, remember that if dispelled it returns automatically without requiring an action.
		
Click to expand...


*
True - so having them equal seems right. Pros and cons for both.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: ECL ability scores and giants*

Note: 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: ECL calculation and Ogres (no I'm not finished yet )*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> Factoring the ogres ability scores means deducting +1 from size.
> 
> Since the size also factors Str +8; Con +4 and Dex -2 (Total +10)
> ...



 
As mentioned in my previous post, I think ECL6 might not be enough.
I did have an ECL 6 Ogre in my group (standard point buy, standard equipment), and he was outperforming the pure fighters. He did have slighly lower hit points, but that didn't make up for the dramatic increase in damage he inflicted (especially since, with his natural armour, his AC was better).
His will save, was no worse than the other fighters really, his reflex only slightly worse than the fighters. His INT obviously wa slower, but that was a roleplaying bonus! 
The problem here, though, isn't stat points in general - it's the massive benefit that STR gives. I personally think it should probably be valued higher - perhaps twice as high - as the other stats (and this should be accounted for in the cost of size, too).


*



			Of course there is always the problem of getting ogre sized magic items (notably weapons).
		
Click to expand...


*
Well, magic items are supposed to resize to their wielder - it says nothing about being within a particular size group. You take something off a halfling, or a dragon, and you can use it. It's only mundane items they need to worry about.

<just one more to go...>


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: ECL calculation and Demons*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Anubis (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> I'm not convinced. I think for a lot of creatures, especially ones with STR and CON exceeding that gained from size, they have to be considered - because a lot of threat from many of those creatures comes purely from those two stats (and size, which is already figured).
> 
> <snip>
> *




The problem with actually factoring in ability scores comes at Levels 1-3, as I have shown and proven time and again.  Under no circumstance is a Level 1 party going to be PEL 9 (each PC CR 4) no matter how high those ability scores are.  As it stands, WITHOUT factoring in the ability scores, those really strong creatures like giants come out accurate.  Trust me on that, I've used them.

That's why UK said those factors aren't necessary.  By the time they COUNT, the increase in PC CR/PEL balances it out, and the differences are negligible.

The only time there is a problem is with super over-inflted scores, like if you gave a kobold Str 30 and Con 30.  With the more powerful creatures, size and HD can explain away the ability scores.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> 
> As mentioned in my previous post, I think ECL6 might not be enough.
> I did have an ECL 6 Ogre in my group (standard point buy, standard equipment), and he was outperforming the pure fighters. He did have slighly lower hit points, but that didn't make up for the dramatic increase in damage he inflicted (especially since, with his natural armour, his AC was better).
> *




Um, an ogre by itself with no levels is CR 4, making it an EL 9.  Where did you get this EL 6 stuff?


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> Um, an ogre by itself with no levels is CR 4, making it an EL 9.  Where did you get this EL 6 stuff? *




I said ECL 6. This was before seeing the CR/EL document - the standard rules. According to the DMG, they are ECL 5. I wasn't cnvicned, bumped them up to ECL 6, and still thought it might not be enough - a suspicion borne out in playtest.
Of course, I'm not so rash as to consider that proof, but to me it is compelling.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> As it stands, WITHOUT factoring in the ability scores, those really strong creatures like giants come out accurate.  Trust me on that, I've used them.
> 
> That's why UK said those factors aren't necessary.  By the time they COUNT, the increase in PC CR/PEL balances it out, and the differences are negligible.
> *




You (and he) may well be right in this instance. As I implied in my last post on this subject, having some guide as to what (for example) STR is appropriate at a certain HD or BAB might be better, then charging a cost if it exceeds this.
(I use STR here, because I think of all the stats it has the potential to skew CR's most - but the same would apply to a lesser extent with other stats; CON, for example, and WIS/INT/CHA for spell/supernatural ability based critters.)


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The problem with actually factoring in ability scores comes at Levels 1-3, as I have shown and proven time and again.  *




All I care about is the subject under discussion, not what you think you have shown and proven before. That just makes you sound frustrated and condescending, which is unfortunate since the points you made were good.

Darren


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: A few class questions?*

Hi all!  (U_K here).

Euro Gencon is over for me (for another year presumably). Had a great time today gaming with other ENWorld players and chatting over a few drinks.

...I'll post my synopsis of the event in a day or two (when I get back to Belfast and get my feet up).



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *Was curious if these enhancements due to Level progression would make their CR higher:
> 
> Monks/Barbarian movement
> Paladins Immunity to disease
> ...




All class features are factored (including all the above).

Essentially I totalled all the class features for a class over 20 levels. Then divided by the number of levels. Then added that number to the method I show in the Design Parameters (for things like HD, BAB, saves etc.) and all the results were between 0.77 and 0.84 per level (except for Clerics and Druids).

So you don't add these things for individual levels, you total them over the full progression then divide.

I must be honest though I didn't rate the Prestige Classes in the DMG. So I can't say for certain if they balance with the core classes or are slightly more powerful.

Typically in rating class features I would try and say to myself "How does this ability compare to a feat". Then rate accordingly.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.*




Hiya mate!  (U_K here)



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *So if the hobgoblins factor racial abilities like darkvision into their CR, then let's take a look at a 2nd level party of four going up against four 2nd level fighter hobgoblins.
> 
> The player characters = PEL 2.
> Hobgoblins = PEL 9
> ...




Hadn't we already ascertained that there was a miscalculation in determining EXP, because a factor had been calculated twice!?

I haven't thrown my weight behind the revision (because I'm on holiday), but I'll get to that in a day or so.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: ECL calculation*

Hiya mate!  (U_K natch)

I just noticed you are from the UK - why weren't you at Gencon mate? Todays ENWorld game (and subsequent fratrenising) was great.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *It does (and I hadn't considered that!)... *


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: ECL calculation*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *<Re: Teleport and Design Parameters>
> In what sense? *




In the sense that the Design Parameters have the caveat that you can face CR problems if you permit monsters to gain spell-like abilities greater than their Hit Dice treated as a spellcaster.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: ECL calculation agreements*

Hello again mate!  



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Good point...
> 
> ...True - so having them equal seems right. Pros and cons for both. *


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The latter two are harder to acquire than flying, true, but remember that flying for most characters is a resource that other characters have to supply somehow. It's only at pretty high levels that it becomes a trivial factor in a group.*




Yes, but its not like the ability to fly is going to unbalance every encounter, far from it. So really its only going to be of prime importance now and again, when one character is almost certainly going to have access to that capability (even at low levels). 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I'm not convinced. I think for a lot of creatures, especially ones with STR and CON exceeding that gained from size, they have to be considered - because a lot of threat from many of those creatures comes purely from those two stats (and size, which is already figured).
> 
> You say
> "All of which is quantified by the system."
> ...




I think discrepancies for super stats are outlined in the Design Parameters. Anything beyond whats 'natural' for a monster (dependant on Hit Dice) should be factored as with Templates and Size.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: ECL calculation*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!  (U_K natch)
> 
> I just noticed you are from the UK - why weren't you at Gencon mate? Todays ENWorld game (and subsequent fratrenising) was great.
> 
> *




I couldn't get away - family stuff. It is Easter.  
(I live in County Durham, which is about as far away from GenCon as you can be and still be in England.)


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: ECL calculation and Ogres (no I'm not finished yet )*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> As mentioned in my previous post, I think ECL6 might not be enough.
> I did have an ECL 6 Ogre in my group (standard point buy, standard equipment), and he was outperforming the pure fighters. He did have slighly lower hit points, but that didn't make up for the dramatic increase in damage he inflicted (especially since, with his natural armour, his AC was better).
> His will save, was no worse than the other fighters really, his reflex only slightly worse than the fighters. His INT obviously wa slower, but that was a roleplaying bonus!
> The problem here, though, isn't stat points in general - it's the massive benefit that STR gives. I personally think it should probably be valued higher - perhaps twice as high - as the other stats (and this should be accounted for in the cost of size, too).*




Obviously hes going to do a lot of damage, but I still think overall ECL 5 is accurate.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Well, magic items are supposed to resize to their wielder - it says nothing about being within a particular size group. You take something off a halfling, or a dragon, and you can use it. It's only mundane items they need to worry about.*




That sounds nonsensical. An item may adapt slightly to creatures of the same size but certainly not over different size categories. With technical exceptions like rings which could theoretically be used on an ogres little pinky or as an earring for a dragon etc. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *<just one more to go...> *




Crothians probably starting to look over his shoulder.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, but its not like the ability to fly is going to unbalance every encounter, far from it. So really its only going to be of prime importance now and again, when one character is almost certainly going to have access to that capability (even at low levels).
> 
> *




I don't know. A lot of creatures, all through the MM CR's, have no ability to deal with flying creatures. (Even a surprising number of Epic creature.)
Once a player gets this, it can be a massive advantage in a wide range of encounters, and if it's a natural ability it can be used in a lot of out-of-combat situations, to bypass hurdles etc.
It's not so much of a problem at high levels (since everyone who wants it can have it), but over levels 1-9 is very useful.

*



			I think discrepancies for super stats are outlined in the Design Parameters. Anything beyond whats 'natural' for a monster (dependant on Hit Dice) should be factored as with Templates and Size.
		
Click to expand...


*
I was just about to ask whether points should be awarded for giving creatures the standard array, etc., but you anticipated me


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The methodology he uses obviously can't work with your system, but I think budding creature designers should bear his points in mind. Once they have worked out a creatures CR, they should then use a method similar to his to see if the final creature is actually reasonable.
> 
> I am beginning to suspect that a number of your creatures CRs are inflated because they have a wide array of spell like abilities, but will only get to use a few of them (I'm thinking of Demons and Devils particularly, because I have a lot of experience of using them - some of which have CR's in the MM which are higher than they should be in the MM, too (can anyone say Vrock)).
> 
> ...




Challenge Rating is all about potential. The question is "what is this monsters potential for challenging the party". Rather than which abilities will it get to use before _a certain party does this or that_.

So all its abilities are pertinent, regardless of how small.

The beauty of this system is that Encounter Levels are properly related to Challenge Rating. So that it automatically reduces the impact of (relatively) minor abilities the higher in power (CR) you ascend.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Don't worry, I'm sure I'll find something else to moan about
> *


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Ogres (no I'm not finished yet )*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Obviously hes going to do a lot of damage, but I still think overall ECL 5 is accurate.*




Well, I don't.  

*



			That sounds nonsensical. An item may adapt slightly to creatures of the same size but certainly not over different size categories. With technical exceptions like rings which could theoretically be used on an ogres little pinky or as an earring for a dragon etc.
		
Click to expand...


*
I agree that it is nonsensical. It is, however, the rules. The DMG specifically says that magic items (of the armour, clothing, or jewellery sort) resize to fit their wielder, and that halflings can wear armour made for humans (and vice-versa by extrapolation).
It also states that size shouldn't be an issue most of the time. If halfling sized gear can fit humans, then human sized gear should fit ogres (after magically resizing).

*



			Crothians probably starting to look over his shoulder. 

Click to expand...


*


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants*

Howdy Anubis mate!  (Its me, honest) 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The problem with actually factoring in ability scores comes at Levels 1-3, as I have shown and proven time and again.  Under no circumstance is a Level 1 party going to be PEL 9 (each PC CR 4) no matter how high those ability scores are.  As it stands, WITHOUT factoring in the ability scores, those really strong creatures like giants come out accurate.  Trust me on that, I've used them.*




Technically it only really gives the illusion of over inflating the CRs/ELs at low levels because of the fragility of the characters at that level.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's why UK said those factors aren't necessary.  By the time they COUNT, the increase in PC CR/PEL balances it out, and the differences are negligible.*




Indeed. Testing showed we could 'get away without them'...provided we had a design parameter for ability scores.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The only time there is a problem is with super over-inflted scores, like if you gave a kobold Str 30 and Con 30.  With the more powerful creatures, size and HD can explain away the ability scores.*




...if not, refer to the design parameters section.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Um, an ogre by itself with no levels is CR 4, making it an EL 9.  Where did you get this EL 6 stuff? *




I think he means ECL mate.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: ECL calculation and Demons*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Challenge Rating is all about potential. The question is "what is this monsters potential for challenging the party". Rather than which abilities will it get to use before a certain party does this or that.
> *




But a creature's potential threat can't be separated from is how many of its abilities it is likely to be able to use in the encounter. 
It should get some benefit form having a wide range of abilities, because that means it is flexible and able to handle different situations, but there should IMO be a diminishing returns benefit for large numbers of abilities.

*



			The beauty of this system is that Encounter Levels are properly related to Challenge Rating. So that it automatically reduces the impact of (relatively) minor abilities the higher in power (CR) you ascend.
		
Click to expand...


*
I agree that the lesser abilities, by virtue of having a lower spell level (and also needing greater and greater points to bump up the CR) does handle this to an extent.
But I look at those demons and devils CRs and can't help feeling, based on my experience playtesting them (a lot), that they are overrated. 
It's possible I haven't been playing them to their potential, but I don't think that's the case.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> I think he means ECL mate. *




And in fact, it's what I said


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

*Laying down the law.*

Oi! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *All I care about is the subject under discussion, not what you think you have shown and proven before. That just makes you sound frustrated and condescending, which is unfortunate since the points you made were good. *




Okay guys, kiss and make up. I don't want any bad blood in this thread y'hear me.

I think Anubis has made strides to curb the tone of his posts, and from what I know of him he doesn't mean to be so inciting.

To quote from Reservoir Dogs:

"No way, no way. Tried it once, it doesn't work. You get four guys all fighting over who's gonna be Mr. Black. But they don't know each other, so nobody wants to back down. No way, I pick. You're Mr. Pink. Be thankful you're not Mr. Yellow."


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I couldn't get away - family stuff. It is Easter.  *




Ah well. I think a lot of people had the same problem, because the attendance was really WAY down on last August. I think holding it over Easter was a bad idea. Personally I can't see the logic behind it.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *(I live in County Durham, which is about as far away from GenCon as you can be and still be in England.) *




I did travel from Belfast though.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 20, 2003)

Hi all! 

Gotta let the real S'mon get on the computer for awhile, so I'll finish catching up tomorrow. Cya all.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 20, 2003)

*Re: Laying down the law.*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Oi!
> Okay guys, kiss and make up. I don't want any bad blood in this thread y'hear me.
> *




I can't find a kissy kissy smiley, so the message icon will have to do, okay Anubis? 

*



			I think Anubis has made strides to curb the tone of his posts, and from what I know of him he doesn't mean to be so inciting.
		
Click to expand...


*
Well if he is trying (and he is! (stop it demiurge, no biscuit for you))), I'll do the same 

Mr Black


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 21, 2003)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Hadn't we already ascertained that there was a miscalculation in determining EXP, because a factor had been calculated twice!?



Upper_Krust.

Actually, as I understand those revisions, the total XP you award to a party of four would remain the same. But if a smaller party than four succeeds to defeat an opponent, then rather than gain the whole amount, each party member only receives 1/4 of the XP total.

Meaning, as I understand those revisions, each 2nd level character receives 1800 XP (1/4 of 7200 XP) for defeating +7 EL difference creatures (that should actually represent elite soldiers rather than the nemesis of the game).

Once again (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record; hopeless now I realize) this problem is solved by calculating PEL as EL. I think your own revelations will eventually lead you to this conclusion (unless you can somehow justify that 1800 XP is an appropriate amount of XP for each of my exampled hobgoblins).


----------



## Eldorian (Apr 21, 2003)

Most likely the way he will do the revision is to get rid of the "PEL based on number of characters" concept, and just take the EL of the average CR of the party.  This leads to easier calculations.  In order for the qualitative description of relative power (sorry if I sound like a textbook), he would need to add the original PEL concept after the exp section.  Either that, or he could force a calculation of PEL before the exp, and do the division by four of exp rewards, and make them individual.  This leads to ugly EXP factors on the chart, however.  The chart may be open to revision though, makign easier numbers.  I do not know if those numbers are set in stone or not.  In addition, the PEL description needs to be reworded; right now it's confusing, based on the misinformation that we've all noticed.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## S'mon (Apr 21, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants*

Hi all!  (U_K here)

I have about an hour before I have to get ready to go home, so lets see if I can catch up...



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I don't know. A lot of creatures, all through the MM CR's, have no ability to deal with flying creatures. (Even a surprising number of Epic creature.)*




Indeed. Mostly 'animal' creatures though (By that I don't necessarily mean the animal 'type').



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Once a player gets this, it can be a massive advantage in a wide range of encounters, and if it's a natural ability it can be used in a lot of out-of-combat situations, to bypass hurdles etc.
> It's not so much of a problem at high levels (since everyone who wants it can have it), but over levels 1-9 is very useful.*




Indeed, its *an* advantage, but its not going to be the backbone of every encounter.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I was just about to ask whether points should be awarded for giving creatures the standard array, etc., but you anticipated me  *






I'll update the ability scores section in V.4 to state when and when not to factor ability scores.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 21, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Ogres (no I'm not finished yet )*

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *<Re: Ogre ECL>
> Well, I don't.  *




Thats certainly your prerogative mate. You may well be right(?).



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I agree that it is nonsensical. It is, however, the rules.*




They apparently have Challenge Rating rules which work just as well. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The DMG specifically says that magic items (of the armour, clothing, or jewellery sort) resize to fit their wielder, and that halflings can wear armour made for humans (and vice-versa by extrapolation).
> It also states that size shouldn't be an issue most of the time. If halfling sized gear can fit humans, then human sized gear should fit ogres (after magically resizing).
> *




Utterly preposterous. I don't entertain anything so blatantly foolish.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 21, 2003)

*Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*

Hello again mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *But a creature's potential threat can't be separated from is how many of its abilities it is likely to be able to use in the encounter.*




Exactly...and with my system we don't need to.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *It should get some benefit form having a wide range of abilities, because that means it is flexible and able to handle different situations, but there should IMO be a diminishing returns benefit for large numbers of abilities.*




There is a diminishing return for large numbers of abilities - thats the _raison d'etre_ of the new Encounter Levels relationship.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I agree that the lesser abilities, by virtue of having a lower spell level (and also needing greater and greater points to bump up the CR) does handle this to an extent.*




I think its pretty good myself. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *But I look at those demons and devils CRs and can't help feeling, based on my experience playtesting them (a lot), that they are overrated.*




Part of this is because people are so ingrained on Challenge Ratings that they fail to see the big picture (ie. the relative Encounter Levels).

The Pit Fiend may be CR 27, but it is only EL +1 higher than a 19th-level Fighter.


----------



## seasong (Apr 21, 2003)

Flying creatures: If the party can fly and attack from a distance, and the opponent can't attack flying creatures (and the situation the GM has cooked up doesn't force them down in order to fight it), there should be very little XP for the encounter. However, this is easily handled by situational EL modifiers.

If the situation is reversed, this is also easily handled by situational EL modifiers... but I find it a rare situation when the party can't find some way of dealing with flying creatures.

Flight allows you to change the tactical dimensions of a fight, but so does dimension door, spell resistance, and immunity to bludgeoning weapons. It's just one more thing to have a countermeasure for, and (like the ability to create walls of ice) one which can modify the situation... hence the situational EL modifiers, rather than a hefty CR cost.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 21, 2003)

*Re: EL/EXP solution*

Hi Sonofapreacherman and Eldorian! 

Like I said previously I won't be turning my attention fully on the matter until I get home. So I can't really agree or refute at this juncture.

I'll run some tests and opt for the simplest available solution. Then we can see what everyone thinks.

The solution may eventually be one of the above ideas (?) - its just too early to say.


Okay gotta go get ready to leave, cya all later from sunny Belfast.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 21, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *Hello again mate!
> Part of this is because people are so ingrained on Challenge Ratings that they fail to see the big picture (ie. the relative Encounter Levels).
> 
> The Pit Fiend may be CR 27, but it is only EL +1 higher than a 19th-level Fighter. *




I don't think that's the mistake I'm making. I see the levels that the demons are supposed to be moderate challenges for in this system, and I think they would be easy meat at those levels.
The Vrock, Hezrou and Glabrezu (to pick three examples), with CR16-19, are suitable challenges for a level 16-19 group by your numbers. I think a level 16-19 group will walk through these almost without breaking a sweat.

_ edited to remove ironic error _
Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 21, 2003)

seasong said:
			
		

> *Flying creatures: If the party can fly and attack from a distance, and the opponent can't attack flying creatures (and the situation the GM has cooked up doesn't force them down in order to fight it), there should be very little XP for the encounter. However, this is easily handled by situational EL modifiers.
> *




That's true. 

*



			Flight allows you to change the tactical dimensions of a fight, but so does dimension door, spell resistance, and immunity to bludgeoning weapons. It's just one more thing to have a countermeasure for, and (like the ability to create walls of ice) one which can modify the situation... hence the situational EL modifiers, rather than a hefty CR cost.
		
Click to expand...


*
It does tend to get encountered earlier than dimension door and spell resistance, and dimension door is usually a limited resource whereas flying, especially for PCs with wings (my main bone of contention), it can be always on.

Darren

Darren


----------



## Anubis (Apr 21, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I said ECL 6. This was before seeing the CR/EL document - the standard rules. According to the DMG, they are ECL 5. I wasn't cnvicned, bumped them up to ECL 6, and still thought it might not be enough - a suspicion borne out in playtest.
> Of course, I'm not so rash as to consider that proof, but to me it is compelling.
> ...




ECL?  In that case you judge it TOO HIGH.  ECL and CR are interchangable in most cases with UK's system.  (Some would factor in ability scores into the ECL, but since this is already in the size modifier for the most part, that is unnecessary.)

The ECL of an ogre is the same as its CR: 4.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 21, 2003)

*Fractional CR*

For CRs below 4, each CR provides a wide range. Have you thought about using fractional levels at this range, so that each EL has a corresponding CR, as in:

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

Or is there a good reason not to?

Sonofapreacherman mentions a problem about 1st level character experience (which is a separate problem from the Group factor being counted twice in XP).
UK counters with the fragility of low level characters.
It is true that low level characters are fragile, but that doesn't mean they should get awards so high that groups don't spend any time at that level. 
The progression used in the DMG also breaks down at low levels, so that levels 1-2 are treated the same as level 3 for experience.

My suggestion for dealing with this problem:
Treat a team of level 1 PCs as having an EL of 3, rather than 1. 
This doesn't alter the monsters (a monster with CR1 still has an EL1) but reduces the high gains of low level.

Actually, to be closer the monster manual (where level 2 groups get 1.5x the experience of 3rd level groups, and 1st level characters get 3x the exp of 3rd level groups), the ELs of low leel groups should be:
3rd level: EL 7
2nd level: EL 6
1st level: EL 4
(Or you could make that last one EL5 just to keep a neat progression.)
These would be just used for giving out XP awards, not for determining the challenge of encounters.

Now, two hobgoblins (EL7) would be worth 1800xp under the first system, and 900xp under the second, to a team of 1st level characters. (As opposed to 1350xp according to the DMG).

[Edited to wonder: but are those 2 level 2 hobgoblins EL9?]
Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 21, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> ECL?  In that case you judge it TOO HIGH.
> *




I don't agree. If you're interested, scroll back to where I give my reasons.

*



			ECL and CR are interchangable in most cases with UK's system.
		
Click to expand...


*
I agree that some factors can be treated interchangably, but I think I disagree on how many.

Darren


----------



## Anubis (Apr 21, 2003)

About the EL/XP problems . . .

Under the currrent system, although it LOOKS like you are factoring in party size twice for XP for the same encounter, in actuality, you are not.

You factor it once for the overall challenge and the second time for XP calculations.

Most of you are forgetting that the fewer people you have on the party, the more difficult an encounter of any particular EL is!  If you have a group of Level 2 characters (PEL 5), an EL 5 encounter should be cake.  If you have a SINGLE Level 2 character, however (PEL 1), an EL 5 encounter will be damn near impossible.  As such, party size SHOULD be counted twice.  It is simply counted for different reasons.

I DO, however, believe the numbers to be *slightly* too high.  After careful study, the problem is solved with the idea presented by someone else that experience points should be based on per character rather than per party.  Someone suggested that XP awards should be "75*PL" rather than "300*PL divided up amongst the party members".  If a solution is necessary, this is the proper solution, as it continues to count the party size twice (once for challenge and a second time for XP calculations) but does not overinflate the XP awards.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 21, 2003)

*Re: Fractional CR*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *For CRs below 4, each CR provides a wide range. Have you thought about using fractional levels at this range, so that each EL has a corresponding CR, as in:
> 
> CR     EL
> 1       1
> ...




Oh good grief no!  If you do that, you once again go right back to the problems that happen when you count ability scores at low level!  You do that and you reduce the XP awards far too much.  First off, understand that the so-called "inflated" XP awards only happen when you go with a party size smaller than standard, which is less than four.  Two fighter hobgoblins are gonna seriously hammer a Level 1 party.  Don't agree?  TRY IT.  Believe me, don't underestimate the fighter hobgoblins!  Hell two NORMAL hobgoblins can challenge a Level 1 party.  I've seen it.  Did it in my most recent gaming session.

As for the fractional CR/EL progression, that is simply way too pedantic and brings about too many calculations.  You can get ELs that CRs can't get you by adding monsters to the encounter.  Three goblins are EL 2.  Four goblins are EL 3.  Six goblins are EL 4.  That's how you get to those "missing" ELs.

Anyway, "just say no to inflated PEL at low levels"!  Characters SHOULDN'T be in those levels for long.  Little to no flexibility for the DM, cause too many things can kill the party outright.  It's best to get to Level 4 ASAP, 'casue that's when it really begins.  People HATE Levels 1-3.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 21, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *About the EL/XP problems . . .
> 
> Under the currrent system, although it LOOKS like you are factoring in party size twice for XP for the same encounter, in actuality, you are not.
> *




In actuality, you ARE.

*



			You factor it once for the overall challenge and the second time for XP calculations.
Most of you are forgetting that the fewer people you have on the party, the more difficult an encounter of any particular EL is!
		
Click to expand...


*
Yes, but factoring it for the overall challenge (with the PEL modifier) already takes into account the size of the group.
Example: an EL 20 encounter faced by several different groups.

In each case, the character are all of level 20 (giving a base EL18).

First, 4-man team: PEL18, they get 300 x 2 (for +2 EL) x level, divided among party = 3000xp each.

Then, a 2-man team faces the same encounter. PEL drops to 16, so they get 300x4 (+4 EL) xlevel divided among party, equals 12000xp each.

Then, a single hero faces that encounter (PEL14), and gets 300 x8 x level / 1 = 48,000xp.

An 8-man group would have a PEL20, and thus get 300 x 1 x level / 8 = 750xp each.

In each case, halving the party size quadruples XP, when it is supposed to be a doubling ratio.

*



			I DO, however, believe the numbers to be *slightly* too high.
		
Click to expand...


*Actually, the PDF figures can be too high or too low - it depends on party size as shown above.
*



			After careful study, the problem is solved with the idea presented by someone else that experience points should be based on per character rather than per party.  Someone suggested that XP awards should be "75*PL" rather than "300*PL divided up amongst the party members".  
If a solution is necessary, this is the proper solution, as it continues to count the party size twice (once for challenge and a second time for XP calculations) but does not overinflate the XP awards.
		
Click to expand...


*
Actually, neither solution is the proper solution - both work.
I originally suggested two methods:
1) Remove the group modifier from XP calculations, and use it only for determining challenge.
2) Keep the group modifier, but modify the XP chart to give individual XP awards.

Either method works (they produce identical results) - they differ only in presentation.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 21, 2003)

*Re: Re: Fractional CR*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> Characters SHOULDN'T be in those levels for long.  Little to no flexibility for the DM, cause too many things can kill the party outright.  It's best to get to Level 4 ASAP, 'casue that's when it really begins.  People HATE Levels 1-3. *




As it happens, some people actually like playing at those level 1-3 levels.
We clearly differ on design goals. I want the system to produce more realistic challenge ratings, yes, but I also want it to maintain the same rough speed of progression as in the DMG - this looks like a problem at level 1-2.
I don't think UKs system should be used JUST as a method of producing realistic CRs, not as a method to "fix" the game at level 1-3 - which works fine for me.

*



			As for the fractional CR/EL progression, that is simply way too pedantic and brings about too many calculations.
		
Click to expand...


*
Certainly less than (say) calculating the CR bonus from monster spell like abilities. It produces no more calculations at all - you use exactly the same calculations, take your result, look at the table. You check if the figue you have is above or below the listed threshold, and round appropriately, then cross-reference.
The only extra work is in producing the table itself which is easy enough, as I showed.

*



			You can get ELs that CRs can't get you by adding monsters to the encounter.  Three goblins are EL 2.  Four goblins are EL 3.  Six goblins are EL 4.  That's how you get to those "missing" ELs.
		
Click to expand...


*
Take two creatures, one calculated at CR 1 and another at 1.5.
If the system works, there should be as mjuch gulf in power between these two creatures as between a CR8 and a CR12 creature (which work out at EL 13 and 15).
That is, a level 1 group faces the same challenge from a CR1 creature, as a Level 8 group faces from a CR 8 creature, AND a level 1 group faces the same danger from a CR 1.5 creature that a Level 8 group faces from a CR 12 critter.

That .5CR could be an extra HD, which makes a big difference to 
people at 1st level.

You use the goblin encounter, but picking critters which work out at CR 1 would be a better example.
Lets pick a few.
Orcs as 1st level warriors & darkvision are CR1.
Gnolls (2HD creatures) are CR 1.4
Wolf (2HD creature with trip attack) are CR1.7.

I think some of these are worth more than others to a first level group, especially if encountered in numbers.

Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 21, 2003)

FINALLY...THE KRUST HAS COME BACK...TO BEL...FAST!

...and of course its lashing with rain as soon as I get off the plane. 

Normal service will resume shortly.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 22, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *FINALLY...THE KRUST HAS COME BACK...TO BEL...FAST!
> 
> ...and of course its lashing with rain as soon as I get off the plane.
> 
> Normal service will resume shortly.  *




You mean that's not normal service for Belfast? Oh, I see what you mean  

Darren


----------



## Anubis (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Fractional CR*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> You use the goblin encounter, but picking critters which work out at CR 1 would be a better example.
> Lets pick a few.
> Orcs as 1st level warriors & darkvision are CR1.
> ...




Not to nitpick, but the orcs are CR 1/2 by the system.  0.6 + 0.2 = 0.8, which means CR 0 which translates to CR 1/2.  Remember to always round down.

As for fractional CRs, the problem there is when you have multiple creatures.  That's why franctional CRs above the first whole number should never be in any such system.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Fractional CR*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not to nitpick, but the orcs are CR 1/2 by the system.  0.6 + 0.2 = 0.8, which means CR 0 which translates to CR 1/2.  Remember to always round down.
> *




In my example, they were Orc Warriors (as they are in the Monster manual).
NPC class = .8 + .2 for darkvision = 1.

*



			As for fractional CRs, the problem there is when you have multiple creatures.  That's why franctional CRs above the first whole number should never be in any such system.
		
Click to expand...


*
You don't have a problem. Multiple creatures add to EL not CR.
Say you have a CR 1.5 critter which wuld become EL3.
Then you have two of them: +2 EL = EL5.
It works just the same as normal.


Darren


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 22, 2003)

*Fractional CR*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *You don't have a problem. Multiple creatures add to EL not CR.
> Say you have a CR 1.5 critter which would become EL3.
> Then you have two of them: +2 EL = EL5.
> It works just the same as normal.*



Indeed it does. I found myself doing this exact same thing in searching for some way to lower the inflated XP rewards.

Let me also say that I love levels 1 through 3. They are my favorite to play. The mundane struggle is far more compelling than upper-to-epic level adventures. The super-powers available to characters at those levels have never been a draw for me. I know many experienced gamers who feel the same way.

Therefore, this CR system should definitely award proportionate XP at all levels.

To simply rationalize those lower levels away is no better than WotC overlooking the insignificant difference between a 100th and 101st level character (which I believe prompted this CR system in the first place).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*

Hello mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I don't think that's the mistake I'm making. I see the levels that the demons are supposed to be moderate challenges for in this system, and I think they would be easy meat at those levels.*




Moderate means the PCs should win comfortably.

Try the same monster as a difficult challenge to gauge challenge rating properly.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The Vrock, Hezrou and Glabrezu (to pick three examples), with CR16-19, are suitable challenges for a level 16-19 group by your numbers. I think a level 16-19 group will walk through these almost without breaking a sweat.
> *




Have the demons equal the number of PCs and use hit and run tactics and then see how tough they can be.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants*

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The ECL of an ogre is the same as its CR: 4. *




Remember to factor equipment.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 22, 2003)

UK,

Got another question for ya'. I've been thinking about what you said in regards to PCs having spell-like abilities. You stated that the base CR/ECL modifier is *0.2 x highest level spell-like ability* (or something along those lines). If a PC had a spell-like ability, 9th level spell as though cast by an 18th level sorcerer, useable once per day, the CR/ECL modifier would be *+2 (1.881)*.

Your system touts that CR = ECL. That they are one and the same. Yet here, a single 9th level spell, once per day, is as costly as two wizard or sorcerer levels. Why is that? That doesn't seem right. I could understand the higher modifier if the creature had fewer than 18 hit die (the number of levels required for a sorcerer to be able to cast 9th level spells), but I can't understand that across the board. It just seems awfully high.

The same also applies to Fast Healing and Regeneration. Why should it cost more for a PC? Some like to say "Well, its because its a lot more useful for a PC.". But is it? I think its no more useful to a PC than it is to a monster. Both are harder to kill, thus the CR adjustment, yet in your system, PCs get a higher adjustment for having the same exact abilities that a monster would have.

Is this really how its supposed to work? Thanks for your time, by the way.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Fractional CR*

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *For CRs below 4, each CR provides a wide range. Have you thought about using fractional levels at this range, so that each EL has a corresponding CR, as in:
> 
> CR     EL
> 1       1
> ...




Nope, I just didn't flesh the idea out in the table.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Sonofapreacherman mentions a problem about 1st level character experience (which is a separate problem from the Group factor being counted twice in XP).
> UK counters with the fragility of low level characters.
> It is true that low level characters are fragile, but that doesn't mean they should get awards so high that groups don't spend any time at that level.
> The progression used in the DMG also breaks down at low levels, so that levels 1-2 are treated the same as level 3 for experience.*




The fragility ups the risks. Hence the EXP factor.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *My suggestion for dealing with this problem:
> Treat a team of level 1 PCs as having an EL of 3, rather than 1.
> This doesn't alter the monsters (a monster with CR1 still has an EL1) but reduces the high gains of low level.*




I don't like the idea of making arbitrary judgement calls. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Actually, to be closer the monster manual (where level 2 groups get 1.5x the experience of 3rd level groups, and 1st level characters get 3x the exp of 3rd level groups), the ELs of low leel groups should be:
> 3rd level: EL 7
> 2nd level: EL 6
> 1st level: EL 4
> ...




I don't plan on changing the CR/EL relationship.

Therefore the solution will definately be something other than that.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *[Edited to wonder: but are those 2 level 2 hobgoblins EL9?] *




No.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 22, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *UK,*




Hey kreynolds mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Got another question for ya'. I've been thinking about what you said in regards to PCs having spell-like abilities. You stated that the base CR/ECL modifier is 0.2 x highest level spell-like ability (or something along those lines). If a PC had a spell-like ability, 9th level spell as though cast by an 18th level sorcerer, useable once per day, the CR/ECL modifier would be +2 (1.881).*




I'm having second thoughts about the notion, I used it a few months go, then removed it, then tried it again, then removed it. Currently I am sceptical about it.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Your system touts that CR = ECL. That they are one and the same.*




Not really. They are related, but they do not equal each other.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Yet here, a single 9th level spell, once per day, is as costly as two wizard or sorcerer levels. Why is that? That doesn't seem right. I could understand the higher modifier if the creature had fewer than 18 hit die (the number of levels required for a sorcerer to be able to cast 9th level spells), but I can't understand that across the board. It just seems awfully high.*




Agreed. As I mentioned about a week ago (in a reply here to demiurgeastaroth) I was thinking simply that At Will/Always Active abilities should simply be doubled for ECL.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *The same also applies to Fast Healing and Regeneration. Why should it cost more for a PC? Some like to say "Well, its because its a lot more useful for a PC.". But is it? I think its no more useful to a PC than it is to a monster. Both are harder to kill, thus the CR adjustment, yet in your system, PCs get a higher adjustment for having the same exact abilities that a monster would have.*




The difference is not that its more useful to the PC, but rather that it affects the campaign more significantly in the hands of PCs.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Is this really how its supposed to work?*




see above



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Thanks for your time, by the way. *




No problem mate, you know that.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fractional CR*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> In my example, they were Orc Warriors (as they are in the Monster manual).
> NPC class = .8 + .2 for darkvision = 1.
> *




Um, NPC class is worth 0.6, NOT 0.8, see the table.  Warriors (their class) is 0.6 per level.  Darkvision is 0.2 of course.  Total is 0.8, which is CR 0.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Hello mate!
> 
> Remember to factor equipment.
> *




I'm talking about the CR/ECL for the ogre itself.  Equipment and stuff doesn't come until AFTER you stick classes and such on it.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 22, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hey kreynolds mate!  *




Hey UK! Figured I'd provide some feeback (hopefully useful ).



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I'm having second thoughts about the notion, I used it a few months go, then removed it, then tried it again, then removed it. Currently I am sceptical about it. *




I'm definately skeptical, but read on to see why.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Not really. They are related, but they do not equal each other. *




I should have been more clear. That's what I meant, the relationship.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Agreed. As I mentioned about a week ago (in a reply here to demiurgeastaroth) I was thinking simply that At Will/Always Active abilities should simply be doubled for ECL. *




What about for CR? Should a monster have it's CR modifier for the at will spell-like ability doubled as well? If not, the PC shouldn't either.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *The difference is not that its more useful to the PC, but rather that it affects the campaign more significantly in the hands of PCs. *




Actually, I don't think it does. Consider a PC with Fast Healing 1. That PC will very slowly recover hit points in the middle of a fight, but other than that, the ability is not that great. Fast Healing becomes powerful between fights, when the PC can just hang out and heal fairly quickly. In effect, the PC is much harder to beat down over a period of time.

However, consider this; a PC that has just been in combat and has not had time to fully heal will not be at 100% fighting capacity. If a DM wants to throw another fight at that PC, he will have to take into account that the PC is not fully recovered from the previous fight. This effectively increases the EL of the new encounter, and the DM must plan for this. In short, because the PC has not fully recovered from the previous fight, it effects the campaign because the DM has to take that into account.

Basically, I don't see a difference. With PCs that have Fast Healing, a DM doesn't necessarily have to up the EL any more than he would take into account a monster with Fast Healing, as the PCs will simply be at full fighting capacity most of the time. Without Fast Healing, the DM has to take into account that the PCs may not be at full fighting capacity, so he will have to take that into cosideration when planning for a future encounter.

My belief is that special abilities like Fast Healing and Spell-like Abilities do indeed affect the campaign, in a book-keeping sense, but no more so than a monster with the same ability.

Do you know what the only difference is between a monster with a spell-like ability and a PC with a spell-like ability? The PC is around more often. But, is he really? No. The monster is around until its killed, in the background, yes, but he's still around. So, the PC and monster both have an equal amount of power. The only real difference between a PC with a spell-like ability and a monster with a spell-like ability is that you actually _see_ the PC use his spell-like ability. The monster will use its own just as often. You just don't get to see it.

Do you see what I'm getting at?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fractional CR*

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Um, NPC class is worth 0.6, NOT 0.8, see the table.  Warriors (their class) is 0.6 per level.  Darkvision is 0.2 of course.  Total is 0.8, which is CR 0.*




I'm guessing he was using the term 'warrior' generically, and actually meant Orc 'Fighter's.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm talking about the CR/ECL for the ogre itself.  Equipment and stuff doesn't come until AFTER you stick classes and such on it. *




Well I think demiurge was refering to the equipped ECL.


----------



## seasong (Apr 22, 2003)

Quick question: Racial CRs below 0.5 are ignored for PCs. Does that hold true of the CR is negative?

Or rather, to put that another way, is CR calculation a two-stage process in which you first calculate racial CR (and turn negatives into fractions) and THEN calculate class CR separately and add it to the fraction?

Here's an example:

Hussan the Awakened Monkey

Race: Awakened Monkey
0. Racial Ability Score Modifiers: STR -8, DEX +4, WIS +2, CHA -6 (CR -0.8)
3. HD: Subsumed under class.
5. Movement: 30 ft, 30 ft climb (CR +0.5)
9. Size: Tiny (CR -0.75)

Net CR: -1.05 (1/4th, or close enough)

If I add 2 levels of wizard with wealth (CR +2), do I calculate the whole entity (+2-1.05 = 0.95) or do I treat each item separately (+2 + (-1.05 shifted to 0.25) = 2.25)?

Would Hussan be CR 0.95 or CR 2.25?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 22, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Hey UK! Figured I'd provide some feeback (hopefully useful ).*




Hiya mate! 

Appreciate the help.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I'm definately skeptical, but read on to see why.*




Okay.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I should have been more clear. That's what I meant, the relationship.*




Okay.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *What about for CR? Should a monster have it's CR modifier for the at will spell-like ability doubled as well? If not, the PC shouldn't either.*




I haven't decided yet, but I don't agree with your reasoning.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Actually, I don't think it does. Consider a PC with Fast Healing 1. That PC will very slowly recover hit points in the middle of a fight, but other than that, the ability is not that great. Fast Healing becomes powerful between fights, when the PC can just hang out and heal fairly quickly. In effect, the PC is much harder to beat down over a period of time.*




Exactly. As I said, it affects the campaign rather than the CR. Hence its more valuable to the PCs represented by the inflated ECL.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *However, consider this; a PC that has just been in combat and has not had time to fully heal will not be at 100% fighting capacity. If a DM wants to throw another fight at that PC, he will have to take into account that the PC is not fully recovered from the previous fight. This effectively increases the EL of the new encounter, and the DM must plan for this. In short, because the PC has not fully recovered from the previous fight, it effects the campaign because the DM has to take that into account.
> 
> Basically, I don't see a difference. With PCs that have Fast Healing, a DM doesn't necessarily have to up the EL any more than he would take into account a monster with Fast Healing, as the PCs will simply be at full fighting capacity most of the time. Without Fast Healing, the DM has to take into account that the PCs may not be at full fighting capacity, so he will have to take that into cosideration when planning for a future encounter.
> 
> ...




Yes, but I don't agree with your reasoning.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 22, 2003)

Hiya seasong mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Quick question: Racial CRs below 0.5 are ignored for PCs. Does that hold true of the CR is negative?
> 
> Or rather, to put that another way, is CR calculation a two-stage process in which you first calculate racial CR (and turn negatives into fractions) and THEN calculate class CR separately and add it to the fraction?
> 
> ...




Personally I would say CR 0.95.


----------



## seasong (Apr 22, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Personally I would say CR 0.95.



Actually, I think I messed it up. Are Hussan's physical ability score modifiers accounted for in the Tiny size modifier?

If so, I think he still comes out ahead, but not by as much.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 22, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *As I said, it affects the campaign rather than the CR. Hence its more valuable to the PCs represented by the inflated ECL. *




This has me greatly confused. A monster has a CR. A PC has a CR. ECL is a measure of CR. You state that Fast Healing doesn't affect CR, but it does affect ECL. If this is the case, then it does in indeed effect CR. If ECL goes up, CR goes up, thus Fast Healing affects CR, and it does so to a PC more than it would a monster, which doesn't make sense.

Am I missing something?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Yes, but I don't agree with your reasoning. *




What part?


----------



## Anubis (Apr 22, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hey UK! Figured I'd provide some feeback (hopefully useful ).
> 
> ...




I think I understand what kreynolds is saying, and he's right.  Fast healing, regeneration, and SLAs only SEEM more useful to PCs.  In FACT, they are not.  In determining challenges for CR and EL and PL and PEL and all, it is ALWAYS *assumed* that "BOTH SIDES ARE FRESH".  Therefore, ANYTHING that happens between combats is irrelevent and NOT part of the equation.

Since challenges assume two fresh 100% sides, you can't take things that happen outside combat into consideration when determining such things.  Therefore, the ability to use fast healing, regeration, and SLAs more often is a moot point!

Do I got it?  I think so.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 22, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Do I got it? *




Dead on.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Fractional CR*



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Therefore, this CR system should definitely award proportionate XP at all levels.
> 
> To simply rationalize those lower levels away is no better than WotC overlooking the insignificant difference between a 100th and 101st level character (which I believe prompted this CR system in the first place).
> 
> *




A very good point 

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Have the demons equal the number of PCs and use hit and run tactics and then see how tough they can be. *




They can be frustrating, yes, but they just aren't challenging the way others of the same CR tend to be.
At levels where PCs significantly exceed the CR of kobolds, I can harass a group with kobolds to much the same comparatve effect. 

Te comparison isn't unreasonable for another reason - most fiends really aren't that sturdy, so they pop up, make a single attack, and hope their powers keep them concealed/etc. for the single round it'll take to waste or nearl waste them. (And that's assuming they use the pre 3.5E haste, which none of them have as natural abilities.)


Demons and Devils are funny critters, in that if you encounter them early, they will wipe the floor with you more than other creatures of a similar CR, because of their high spell resistance and AC. But once a group reaches a levels equal to the CR listed in the MM, they tend to be push overs.

So pushing their UK EL to a higher comparitive level doesn't seem right.
I do know what the DMG definition of a moderate encounter is, as opposed to an easy one, and I don't think demons are it.
But I think the problem here is that demons and devils are pretty badly designed; if thay were more like celestials (having lots of spell abilities in combination with impressive fighting abilities - for the durability it provides), they might be easier to rate. 
As it happens, at the levels demons & devils are meant to be a moderate challenge, nearly (and I say nearly, not all) all of each creatures attacks are a waste of time, only good for harrying and distracting purposes.

But if the new Pit Fiend is anything to go by, this is likely to change for the better in 3.5E.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fractional CR*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Um, NPC class is worth 0.6, NOT 0.8, see the table.  Warriors (their class) is 0.6 per level.  Darkvision is 0.2 of course.  Total is 0.8, which is CR 0.
> *




I missed that. Let's give it +2 STR 


*



			I'm talking about the CR/ECL for the ogre itself.  Equipment and stuff doesn't come until AFTER you stick classes and such on it.
		
Click to expand...


*
Which, since we were talking about using it as PC would be the case.
One thing I end to do with intelligent monsters who have access to societies willing to trae with them, is work out the GP value of the treasure they are supposed to have, and equipm them as an appropriate NPC of a level where they gain that amount of treasure.
Since that paragraphs a bit convoluted, I'll give an example.
A Yuan-ti Pure Blood is a CR5 creature, and gets double treasure: 3200gp. That's roughly what  4th level NPC gets, so I'll give it equipment as a 4th level rogue or something. 
(I do recognise this makes them more challenging and up the XP award - one of the things I like about UKs system is it does handle this in the system).

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 22, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> Actually, I don't think it does. Consider a PC with Fast Healing 1. That PC will very slowly recover hit points in the middle of a fight, but other than that, the ability is not that great. Fast Healing becomes powerful between fights, when the PC can just hang out and heal fairly quickly. In effect, the PC is much harder to beat down over a period of time.
> 
> However, consider this; a PC that has just been in combat and has not had time to fully heal will not be at 100% fighting capacity. If a DM wants to throw another fight at that PC, he will have to take into account that the PC is not fully recovered from the previous fight. This effectively increases the EL of the new encounter, and the DM must plan for this. In short, because the PC has not fully recovered from the previous fight, it effects the campaign because the DM has to take that into account.
> ...




The fact that the GM has to account for this means it does affect the campaign.
A player with fast healing 1 will be fully healed in a matter of minutes whether he rests or not, and that allows the grou to conserve resources (healing potions and clerical spells).
Because of this, and because the character will nearly always be at full hit points, the group is able to face more challenging situations - they can keep going for longer, and don't rest as often. If they only have 1 fight a day, it makes no difference, but if they have several, it makes the group more powerful. Thus, it costs more.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 22, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> In determining challenges for CR and EL and PL and PEL and all, it is ALWAYS *assumed* that "BOTH SIDES ARE FRESH".  Therefore, ANYTHING that happens between combats is irrelevent and NOT part of the equation.
> 
> Since challenges assume two fresh 100% sides, you can't take things that happen outside combat into consideration when determining such things.  Therefore, the ability to use fast healing, regeration, and SLAs more often is a moot point!
> ...




Actually, no you haven't 

In determining challenge ratings, it is assumed that PC resources will deplete, and that a team can just about manage 4 encounters of equivalent CR.
NO CR is designed as a single encounter: it is all about attrition.
The assumption is that opponents are always fresh, but that PCs will be at anything from 100% to 20% resources.

Darren


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 22, 2003)

demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The fact that the GM has to account for this means it does affect the campaign. *




I never said it didn't.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *A player with fast healing 1 will be fully healed in a matter of minutes whether he rests or not, and that allows the grou to conserve resources (healing potions and clerical spells). *




A player with fast healing 1 will still consume party resources, such as healing potions and clerical spells, when in combat. Fast Healing 1 is not good enough to keep with the damage of a fight. It is only truly useful outside of combat. But, that's irrelevant anyway.

A PC with healing potions and a monster with fast healing both have access to healing resources. However, the monster has an infinite amount of healing resources, while the PC does not. The monster's CR will take this into account, but the point is that it doesn't matter. The Core Rules, and even UK's own system, both give out fast healing to monsters cheaper than to PCs simply because monsters die quickly and aren't around in the game long enough (usually no longer than an encounter or two), even though the monster exhists and conducts a day to day life when the PCs aren't there to hack it up. Any system based off of this is inherently flawed.

Basically, its like saying "I'm going to charge you more for this because you get more playtime", and that doesn't make any sense.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *If they only have 1 fight a day, it makes no difference, but if they have several, it makes the group more powerful. Thus, it costs more. *




So, let me get this straight...you're saying that the ECL modifier of Fast Healing for a PC is directly based upon how many encounters a DM sets up for his PCs in a single day? By stating the PCs are more powerful if they have several fights a day, that is in fact what you're saying, and that doesn't make any sense either, as that would also mean that Fast Healing on a monster that is encountered several times in one day before being defeated would have a much higher CR modifier than normal.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 22, 2003)

demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *NO CR is designed as a single encounter... *




Eh?

Party: Four 9th level player characters.
Foe: One hound archon.

There. I just designed one.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 22, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Eh?
> 
> ...




Actually, you've taken a creature whose challenge rating is designed under the assumption it will be one of several encounters that day.
If you give a group more effective healing (fast healing for example), it will allow them to face more encounters per day.

The Encounters section of the DMG (starting on page 100) discusses this, in particular the sidebar at the bottom of page101 (bottombar?) entitled "What's Challenging".

Lets say that the group scrapes through 4 encounters, and are on the verge of death.
Take an otherwise identical group, and add some level f fast healing. For the4 sake of this example, they manage to scrape through 5 encounters before reaching the same state.
Fast healing has given them an extra 25% experience, but in actuality they faced the same overall challenge - the experience should be the same.
This is achieved by increasing the party level to compensate (by increasing the ECL of the character who has fast healing).

[I avoided exact numbers of fast healing, because it's difficult to say exactly how much the ECL should increase - that's a problem for UK )

Darren


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 22, 2003)

demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Actually, you've taken a creature whose challenge rating is designed under the assumption it will be one of several encounters that day. *




No. The Hound Archon's challenge rating simply represents that it is an appropriate challenge (one that would deplete 20% of the parties resources) for a 9th level party. Nothing else.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The Encounters section of the DMG (starting on page 100) discusses this, in particular the sidebar at the bottom of page101 (bottombar?) entitled "What's Challenging". *




No. You are taking that text out of context. The passage "What's Challenging" is merely advice as to how you should set up multiple encounters in a single day, pointing out that you should take into account the fact that the party's resources will be continually depleted with each additional encounter.

What you are suggesting is that a hound archon's CR of 9 represents but one fight in a day full of fights. This is entirely inaccurate.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Lets say that the group scrapes through 4 encounters, and are on the verge of death.
> Take an otherwise identical group, and add some level f fast healing. For the4 sake of this example, they manage to scrape through 5 encounters before reaching the same state.
> Fast healing has given them an extra 25% experience, but in actuality they faced the same overall challenge - the experience should be the same.
> This is achieved by increasing the party level to compensate (by increasing the ECL of the character who has fast healing). *




You're missing the point. I never said that the ECL of a character should not be increased. Not once. What I _did_ say, however, is that the ECL of a character with fast healing should not be increased more than the CR of a monster with fast healing. They both have the same amount of resources, so why should fast healing cost more for one and less for othe other?

Take two identical 10th level fighters with the exact same amount of resources. Now, make one a PC and one an NPC, both with the exact same amount of resources. They are perfectly matched in CR (granted, it will be a truly ugly fight, but they are still matched). Neither has anything over the other. Now, give both of them fast healing. If you can explain to me why the PC will suddenly have a higher CR (because of an increase in his ECL from fast healing) than the NPCs CR (increased because of fast healing), even though they have the exact same resources...


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 22, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What you are suggesting is that a hound archon's CR of 9 represents but one fight in a day full of fights. This is entirely inaccurate.
> *




This is the basis upon which the CR, EL, and experience system are designed. Everything flows from that. The DMG even recommends that in situations where players will encounter fewer encounters per day (as in the wilderness), you should increase the EL of those encounters to compensate.
Not every day of adventure will follow those guidelines, of course, but the system is designed based on those assumptions.

*



			What I _did_ say, however, is that the ECL of a character with fast healing should not be increased more than the CR of a monster with fast healing. They both have the same amount of resources, so why should fast healing cost more for one and less for othe other?
		
Click to expand...


*
Because they do different things. For the bad guy, it bolsters it in a single fight allowing it to last a little bit longer.
For the PCs, it does that, AND allows them to fight more often.

*



			Take two identical 10th level fighters with the exact same amount of resources. Now, make one a PC and one an NPC, both with the exact same amount of resources. 
Now, give both of them fast healing. If you can explain to me why the PC will suddenly have a higher CR (because of an increase in his ECL from fast healing) than the NPCs CR (increased because of fast healing), even though they have the exact same resources...
		
Click to expand...


*
The PC will not have a higher CR; he will have a higher ECL. They are two different things. Both the NPC and C's ECL ratings would be increased by more than their CR rating, but the ECL rating only matters if the character is a PC, or a companion NPC (a cohort, for example).

The DMG does discuss (n passing; I expect Savage Species goes into more detail) the difference between ECL and CR on page 22, under Variant: Monsters as Races (but uses the term Monster Levels since the term ECL wasn't coined then). 

Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 22, 2003)

Hello mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Actually, I think I messed it up. Are Hussan's physical ability score modifiers accounted for in the Tiny size modifier?
> 
> If so, I think he still comes out ahead, but not by as much. *




Yes the official size modifiers for ability scores are counted.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 22, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *This has me greatly confused. A monster has a CR. A PC has a CR. ECL is a measure of CR. *




Not exactly. ECL is a tool designed to balance various races and subtypes with character level, for the most part it does indeed balance with CR, just not with regards Fast Healing and Regeneration.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *You state that Fast Healing doesn't affect CR, but it does affect ECL. If this is the case, then it does in indeed effect CR. If ECL goes up, CR goes up, thus Fast Healing affects CR, and it does so to a PC more than it would a monster, which doesn't make sense.
> 
> Am I missing something?*




You are missing tha fact that Fast Healing/Regeneration work all day every day for PCs both 'in front of camera' and 'behind the scenes' as it were.

Unlike say an always active 'True Seeing' when the PCs are 'behind the scenes' it really doesn't matter that its always active.

Whereas Fast Healing/Regeneration continues to function AND still has a purpose in doing so - restoring lost hit points.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *What part? *




The part where you don't agree with me.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 22, 2003)

demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *This is the basis upon which the CR, EL, and experience system are designed. Everything flows from that. *




No. The basis upon which the CR, EL, and experience systems are designed is PL = CR is a moderate encounter that will drain approximately 20% of the parties resources. Anything else, you are adding of your own accord. If the party has fewer than four encounters in a day, the CRs of creatures do not change, the ELs do not change, and the experience given does not change. They simply have fewer encounters against the same creatures and earn less XP than they would have if they had been involved in more encounters.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The DMG even recommends that in situations where players will encounter fewer encounters per day (as in the wilderness), you should increase the EL of those encounters to compensate. *




Taking into consideration that you and I already see one passage of the DMG in greatly different contexts, do you happen to have a page number that I can take a look at so that I can see it for myself? I figure that's only fair to the discussion at hand.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Because they do different things. For the bad guy, it bolsters it in a single fight allowing it to last a little bit longer.
> For the PCs, it does that, AND allows them to fight more often. *




No. You are arbitrarily deciding that a bad guy with fast healing will only have a single fight. You are assuming that he will be defeated and will not fight again. You are assuming that his odds of survival are so much lower than the good guys that having Fast Healing is meaningless. You are assuming that the bad guy won't be able to get into a fight with the good guys, escape, and take some time out to let his Fast Healing heal him, then return and fight the good guys again. When you arbitrarily twist and wrench a system into your favor, naturally, the numbers skew in your favor.

Fast Healing bolsters a PC in and out of a fight. Fast Healing bolsters an NPC in and out of a fight. There is no difference.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The PC will not have a higher CR; he will have a higher ECL. They are two different things. *




No. They are the same in certain aspects, the most important of which, I will demonstrate. A 10th level PC fighter has an ECL of 10 and a CR of 10. A 10th level PC drow fighter has an ECL of 12. Now, are you saying that the drow fighter's CR is not 12? If so, you'd be wrong. If not, then I just proved my point. Increasing the ECL of a PC increases that PC's CR by an equal amount. What I have a problem with is Fast Healing increasing a PCs CR by a greater amount than it increases a monster's CR.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Both the NPC and C's ECL ratings would be increased by more than their CR rating, but the ECL rating only matters if the character is a PC, or a companion NPC (a cohort, for example). *




This is what I have a problem with; increasing a PCs CR and ECL by a greater amount than an NPCs or creature's CR and ECL, even when they have the exact same resources, simply because one is a PC and one isn't.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The DMG does discuss (n passing; I expect Savage Species goes into more detail) the difference between ECL and CR on page 22, under Variant: Monsters as Races (but uses the term Monster Levels since the term ECL wasn't coined then). *




It doesn't matter if you call it ECL or Level Equivalent, as the result is the same. I'll even use the same source that you did. It's a given that a 5th level PC fighter is level equivalent +5. According to the DMG, an ogre PC is level equivalent +5. What you are saying is that they are not the same, and you are grossly in error. A single 5th level fighter and a single ogre are perfectly matched for a 50/50 fight. The only reason the ogre has a CR lower than 5 is because it is assumed that it will be facing not one, but four 5th level characters. My point is that in a 1 on 1 situation, CR does in fact equal ECL/Level Equivalent, yet you are saying that fast healing on the fighter will cost more than it will on the ogre.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 22, 2003)

Howdy UK. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Not exactly. ECL is a tool designed to balance various races and subtypes with character level, for the most part it does indeed balance with CR, just not with regards Fast Healing and Regeneration. *




Yes, exactly. You are singling out Fast Healing and Regeneration as an exception to the rule, but I don't see how that's possible. Read on to see why I'm having a hard time accepting this.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *You are missing tha fact that Fast Healing/Regeneration work all day every day for PCs both 'in front of camera' and 'behind the scenes' as it were. *




You are missing the fact that Fast Healing and Regeneration both work all day every day for NPCs and monster both "in front of the camera" and "behind the scenes" as it were. They both benefit the exact amount from both abilities. My point is that you are, either deliberately or inadvertantly, ignoring the fact that both NPCs and monsters benefit from their abilities behind the scenes as well.

If the PCs with Fast Healing survive an encounter without defeating a monster, they will benefit from it "behind the scenes". If a monster with Fast Healing survives an encounter without defeating the PCs, it will benefit from it "behind the scenes". Effectively, because you rate Fast Healing more valuable to a PC than an NPC/monster, you are assuming that no NPC/monster will ever be able to benefit from Fast Healing behind the scenes. That simply is not the case.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Unlike say an always active 'True Seeing' when the PCs are 'behind the scenes' it really doesn't matter that its always active. *




Well that depends on what they're doing behind the scenes, now doesn't it? 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Whereas Fast Healing/Regeneration continues to function AND still has a purpose in doing so - restoring lost hit points. *




It has a function AND still has a purpose no matter who has it, whether it be a PC or an NPC/monster.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 23, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *They can be frustrating, yes, but they just aren't challenging the way others of the same CR tend to be.
> At levels where PCs significantly exceed the CR of kobolds, I can harass a group with kobolds to much the same comparatve effect.
> 
> Te comparison isn't unreasonable for another reason - most fiends really aren't that sturdy, so they pop up, make a single attack, and hope their powers keep them concealed/etc. for the single round it'll take to waste or nearl waste them. (And that's assuming they use the pre 3.5E haste, which none of them have as natural abilities.) *




Try Four _mirror imaged_ Vrocks each casting _mass charm_ At Will on the party.

Try Four _improved invisible_, _unholy aura'd_ Pit Fiends casting _meteor swarm_ on the party. Then having the four _unholy aura'd_ Gelugons they summoned to cast _cone of cold_ on them.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Demons and Devils are funny critters, in that if you encounter them early, they will wipe the floor with you more than other creatures of a similar CR, because of their high spell resistance and AC. But once a group reaches a levels equal to the CR listed in the MM, they tend to be push overs.
> 
> So pushing their UK EL to a higher comparitive level doesn't seem right.
> I do know what the DMG definition of a moderate encounter is, as opposed to an easy one, and I don't think demons are it.
> ...




Caught napping the outsiders can be dispatched with ease, but thats true of any opponent.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *But if the new Pit Fiend is anything to go by, this is likely to change for the better in 3.5E. *




...of course it will have a higher CR.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 23, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No. The basis upon which the CR, EL, and experience systems are designed is PL = CR is a moderate encounter that will drain approximately 20% of the parties resources. Anything else, you are adding of your own accord. If the party has fewer than four encounters in a day, the CRs of creatures do not change, the ELs do not change, and the experience given does not change. They simply have fewer encounters against the same creatures and earn less XP than they would have if they had been involved in more encounters.
> 
> *




Except that adventures do tend to push characters to their limit, to challenge players (and beyond, if they're written by Bruce Cordell ). You will get a situation in which the players are likely to face a stream of opponents often in a dungeon, but not exclusively), so the amount of free healing they get between encounters can't be ignored.
Imagine, instead of Fast Healing, it was the ability to regenerate used spell levels, at say 1 a minute. Obviously, this would make such an adventure easier, just as being able to regain hit points without using clerical spells or potions does.


*



			Taking into consideration that you and I already see one passage of the DMG in greatly different contexts, do you happen to have a page number that I can take a look at so that I can see it for myself? I figure that's only fair to the discussion at hand.
		
Click to expand...


*
I agree with you, it would be fair, but alas I can't find one (dammit) and I'll concede it's not there. I suspect it's another of those logical assumptions:
Imagine you are running a dungeon based adventure. you want the characters to run the risk of failure, so you place several encounters averaging their CR.
Now, you run a wilderness adventure, where you know most days the PCs will not have an encounter, and will rarely have more than one. To similarly challenge the group, you must use higher CR opponents.
Again, this flows naturally from the core assumptions.

*



			No. You are arbitrarily deciding that a bad guy with fast healing will only have a single fight. You are assuming that he will be defeated and will not fight again.
		
Click to expand...


*
I don't really think that's an arbitrary assumption. It's the standard case. It won't always be that way, but it usually is.

*



			You are assuming that his odds of survival are so much lower than the good guys that having Fast Healing is meaningless.
		
Click to expand...


*
Given that the standard CR encounter is one in which the PCs lose 20% of their resources, and are expected to win comfortably, again I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.

*



			When you arbitrarily twist and wrench a system into your favor, naturally, the numbers skew in your favor.
		
Click to expand...


*As noted above, I don't think I was arbitrary. 

*



			Fast Healing bolsters a PC in and out of a fight. Fast Healing bolsters an NPC in and out of a fight. There is no difference.
		
Click to expand...


*
But the standard case, is that NPCs (and especially monsters) won't be around for more than that single encounter.
If a villain is driven off, heals himself, and returns to fight again, that is a second encounter - and the PCs might will get experience for both encounters (at least half experience for the first), so the potential increase in CR that the fast healing would give is already accounted for.

*



			No. They are the same in certain aspects, the most important of which, I will demonstrate. A 10th level PC fighter has an ECL of 10 and a CR of 10. A 10th level PC drow fighter has an ECL of 12. Now, are you saying that the drow fighter's CR is not 12?
		
Click to expand...


*
Lets ignore the Drow, because I don't have their ECL and CR handy (but ISTR they are different).
In any case, it's irrelevant. See the Ogre example, below.

*



			This is what I have a problem with; increasing a PCs CR and ECL by a greater amount than an NPCs or creature's CR and ECL, even when they have the exact same resources, simply because one is a PC and one isn't.
		
Click to expand...


*
It's not simply because one is a PC and one isn't; it's because one is played continuously and the other isn't. It's just a happy coincidence that PCs are played continuously, and enemies aren't. 

*



			It doesn't matter if you call it ECL or Level Equivalent, as the result is the same. I'll even use the same source that you did. It's a given that a 5th level PC fighter is level equivalent +5. According to the DMG, an ogre PC is level equivalent +5. What you are saying is that they are not the same, and you are grossly in error. A single 5th level fighter and a single ogre are perfectly matched for a 50/50 fight. The only reason the ogre has a CR lower than 5 is because it is assumed that it will be facing not one, but four 5th level characters.
		
Click to expand...


*
The problem with this argument is this:
You say it's okay for the Ogre CR to be 2, and ECL 5, because ECL and CR are not the same.
But the 10th level Drow ECL and CR must both be 12, because ECL and CR are the same.

*



			My point is that in a 1 on 1 situation, CR does in fact equal ECL/Level Equivalent, yet you are saying that fast healing on the fighter will cost more than it will on the ogre.
		
Click to expand...


*
I understand what you're getting at, but as noted, I disagree. If you still disagree with me, then lets agree to disagree since it doesn't look like we'll find common ground.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 23, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!
> 
> Try Four mirror imaged Vrocks each casting mass charm At Will on the party.
> *




Of course, chances are the players at this level will have access to True Seeing, negating the mirror images, and most will need to roll a 1 to fail that save, assuming they don't have Mind Blank (accessible at the levels you have the Vrock CR) - or even just Proetction from Evil (or any of that family of spells) - which means the charm automatially fails.

*



			Try Four improved invisible, unholy aura'd Pit Fiends casting meteor swarm on the party.
		
Click to expand...


*
I'd be happier if they could cast Fire Storm. I mean, Meteor Swarms such a weak 9th level spell. 
In any case, the sorecerer in my group rarely goes anywhere without protection from elements (fire) cast - it is the most common form of energy attack.
But then, they have to somehow avoid the players ability to use See Invisibility or the aforemention True Seeing. 

*



			Then having the four unholy aura'd Gelugons they summoned to cast cone of cold on them.
		
Click to expand...


*
Again, this is one where the saves are likely to need 1 to fail (still take some damage, but then the cleric casts mass heal).
The Unholy Aura is one of the reasons I referred to their high AC earlier; does't help their saves much ,though.

However, the attack you cite is FOUR Pit Fiends. By your system, just one is a moderate/challenging encounter for a 24th-27th level group. My 24th level group rolled over three of them, which were using exactly these kind of tactics. (And got direct hits with their meteor swarms in the opening salvo - though they foolishly didn't concentrate on a single character: if they had, it might not have taken out the fighter, and it certainly wouldn't have taken out the sorcerer (that fire protection).)
Their invisibility did cause a bit of confusion, and they did get the cleric to run away thanks to a roll of 1 (which could count as 20% loss of resources I suppose - but remember, they were facing what is regarded as a +4 EL encounter in this system), but the rest prevailed withut much difficulty.

*



			Caught napping the outsiders can be dispatched with ease, but thats true of any opponent.
		
Click to expand...


*
Yes, but my experience isn't of that sort for the most part.

*



			<about the new Pit Fiend>
...of course it will have a higher CR. 

Click to expand...


*

Yes, but it will be more balanced (double hit points, has better combat abilities, and most importantly, has better stats with which to use its spell-like abilities - plus a few new abilities like a mass hold spell), so it may deserve it.

Darren


----------



## Anubis (Apr 23, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fractional CR*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> I missed that. Let's give it +2 STR
> *




Don't forget the ability scores aren't counted anymore.




			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> Which, since we were talking about using it as PC would be the case.
> *




My point was that usually you simply make a regular character and tack this stuff on.  Making an ogre fighter?  Put all the ogre stuff on a fighter and then addthe CR as ECL.  Simple.  I do understand your problem now though.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> One thing I end to do with intelligent monsters who have access to societies willing to trae with them, is work out the GP value of the treasure they are supposed to have, and equipm them as an appropriate NPC of a level where they gain that amount of treasure.
> Since that paragraphs a bit convoluted, I'll give an example.
> A Yuan-ti Pure Blood is a CR5 creature, and gets double treasure: 3200gp. That's roughly what  4th level NPC gets, so I'll give it equipment as a 4th level rogue or something.
> ...




Well then . . . In that case, an ogre with no class would be CR 4.7, which is still CR 4.  Ogre is 4.2 and the average value of a CR 4 treasure is 1200, which translates to Level 5 NPC Wealth.  (Remember to use UK's system for this; see the PDF for details.)  Anyway, that is worth CR +0.5, which adds up to the CR 4.7, meaning it is still CR 4.  For PC ogres, however, the CR/ECL would actually be CR 4.8, becasue that 1200 translates to Level 3 PC Wealth.  Anyway, you start with that CR 4.8/ECL 4, giving the PC 2700 wealth, and then tack things on top.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 23, 2003)

The POINT about the CR/ECL thing with fast healing and regenration is that by increasing the ECL after CR, you're counting the same ability twice!


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 23, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fractional CR*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Don't forget the ability scores aren't counted anymore.
> 
> *




My understanding is that the difference from racial average are counted. So creating an exceptional individual of a race with the standard array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8, wchich translates to +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, -2) would increase the CR by +1; is that right UK?

[Snip my method of granting intelligent & social monsters treasure]
*



			Well then . . . In that case, an ogre with no class would be CR 4.7, which is still CR 4.
		
Click to expand...


*
I only mentioned that idea in passing - I didn't use it for the example, and wouldn't use it for a PC Trolll. I just thought it was neat enough to share. Others may disagree 

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 23, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *The POINT about the CR/ECL thing with fast healing and regenration is that by increasing the ECL after CR, you're counting the same ability twice! *




Or you're counting it once, with different costs.
Fast healing 3 adds 0.3 to CR, and 2.3 to ECL, thus leading to the listed ECL cost of +2 over CR.

Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 23, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*

Morning mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Of course, chances are the players at this level will have access to True Seeing, negating the mirror images, and most will need to roll a 1 to fail that save, assuming they don't have Mind Blank (accessible at the levels you have the Vrock CR) - or even just Proetction from Evil (or any of that family of spells) - which means the charm automatially fails.*




Yes, *a* player might have Mind Blank cast, *a* player might have true seeing active, true. But not all.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I'd be happier if they could cast Fire Storm. I mean, Meteor Swarms such a weak 9th level spell. *




Indeed. Half the meteor swarm spell should be physical force from the blast impact or somesuch. It would probably also be better to swop the Fire Storm and Meteor Swarm between Balor and Pit Fiend.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *In any case, the sorecerer in my group rarely goes anywhere without protection from elements (fire) cast - it is the most common form of energy attack.*




But its not so likely that the whole group will have it cast.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *But then, they have to somehow avoid the players ability to use See Invisibility or the aforemention True Seeing. *




Ambush.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Again, this is one where the saves are likely to need 1 to fail *




A 17th-level party wil universally need a '2' or more on their Will saves vs. a Vrock's _mass charm_!? I can't see it.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *(still take some damage, but then the cleric casts mass heal).*




Is this the broken version of _mass heal_ they are casting!? 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The Unholy Aura is one of the reasons I referred to their high AC earlier; does't help their saves much ,though.*




Well it gives them +4, not much I agree though.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *However, the attack you cite is FOUR Pit Fiends. By your system, just one is a moderate/challenging encounter for a 24th-27th level group.*




If you don't agree with some (or all?) of the CR factors then which of them do you believe overly inflates the Pit Fiends CR?



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *My 24th level group rolled over three of them, which were using exactly these kind of tactics. (And got direct hits with their meteor swarms in the opening salvo - though they foolishly didn't concentrate on a single character: if they had, it might not have taken out the fighter, and it certainly wouldn't have taken out the sorcerer (that fire protection).)*




Those foolish Intelligence 20/Wisdom 20 geniuses you mean. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Their invisibility did cause a bit of confusion, and they did get the cleric to run away thanks to a roll of 1 (which could count as 20% loss of resources I suppose - but remember, they were facing what is regarded as a +4 EL encounter in this system), but the rest prevailed withut much difficulty.*




I would be interested in hearing a recount of how the Pit Fiends were subsequently beaten.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Yes, but it will be more balanced (double hit points, has better combat abilities, and most importantly, has better stats with which to use its spell-like abilities - plus a few new abilities like a mass hold spell), so it may deserve it. *




We'll see. It should be interesting if nothing else.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 23, 2003)

demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The problem with this argument is this:
> You say it's okay for the Ogre CR to be 2, and ECL 5, because ECL and CR are not the same.
> But the 10th level Drow ECL and CR must both be 12, because ECL and CR are the same. *




There is no problem. You missed the point entirely.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I understand what you're getting at... *




I honestly don't think you do, so I'll just let it die there. Maybe if you go back and read that bit about the ogre and drow _really carefully_, you'll understand it. As is, I think you just gave it a cursory glance.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 23, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Ambush.
> [/B]




If its an attack completely out of the blue, yes. If the players know they are in hostile territory, they'll have such spells already cast.

[/B][/QUoTE]
A 17th-level party wil universally need a '2' or more on their Will saves vs. a Vrock's _mass charm_!? I can't see it.
*



			Well, 2 might be an exaggeration - but not far off. The 17th level NPC fighter (generally the worst of the will savers) from the DMG needs an 11; give him +5 cloak of resistance (improved on +3), luckstone, a wisdom item (and often better stats, either trhough better starting rolls or wishes, or both) and it looks a lot better.
Ad remember, this is the guy who will be weakest - and again, there's a lot of defences available that will stop that attack dead. The Vrock needs surprise to make it work.





			Is this the broken version of mass heal they are casting!? 

Click to expand...


  Actually, the version I've been using heals 100 points.






			Well it gives them +4, not much I agree though.
		
Click to expand...



Yes, the problem is their save stats are usually very low, and their HD are also very low compared to other creatures encountered at their CR.





			If you don't agree with some (or all?) of the CR factors then which of them do you believe overly inflates the Pit Fiends CR?
		
Click to expand...



I wish I could answer that. Also, the problem I have is less with the top demons/devils, but more with the inermediate ones (like the Vrock, Glabrezu, etc).
I haven't worked out how they are costed, it's just that the final number seems to high - the most obvious thing to think of, for me, is the fact that they have many spell abilities, only a few of which they will get any real mileage out of, and even if all were equally useful, they only have a couple of rounds to use them (or longer, using the hit-and-run tactics for which they are suited - but even that doesn't necessarily take them far).





			Those foolish Intelligence 20/Wisdom 20 geniuses you mean. 

Click to expand...



Yeah, well, they have to operate within the confines of the GMs INT & WIS  





			I would be interested in hearing a recount of how the Pit Fiends were subsequently beaten.
		
Click to expand...



I struggle to remember the exact order of events, but use of Time Stop (using the variant rule: no targetted spells), the Fighter's Devastating Critical ("Kill the Pit fiend!" Splat! "What Pit fiend? Dammit - No-one else within reach so I lose the rest of my attacks" . Dimensional anchor stopped one from teleporting, so the monk (!) wasted it. The sorcerer had used spectral hand to cohort using spectral hand to drop see invisibility on people, and the other sorcerer has see invisibility cast as a persistent spell.

One of the pit fiends did flee (after terrifying the cleric), once the other two were toast. 





			We'll see. It should be interesting if nothing else.
		
Click to expand...



Agreed.
Darren
		
Click to expand...


*


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 23, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> I honestly don't think you do, so I'll just let it die there. *




Well, we agree that we don't agree. That's something anyway 

Darren


----------



## Anubis (Apr 23, 2003)

In order for a DM to play dragons and super-high INT and WIS creatures correctly, he or she MUST use metagame thinking.  There is no way around it.  DMs simply can't be as smart as a Prismatic Dragon.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Apr 23, 2003)

Granted, I'm slow when it comes to all this math, but please bear with me...

A party of four standard 1st level characters goes up against four 1st level hobgoblins and defeats them.
The party is rated at CR 1 and weighs in at PEL 1. The hobgoblins are rated at CR 1 (0.9 for NPC fighter class + 0.2 for darkvision) and weigh in at EL 5 (1 + 4 for opponent numbers). The party nets 1200 XP (300 for each party member).

Now cut their numbers in half...

A party of two standard 1st level characters goes up against two 2nd level hobgoblins and defeats them.
The party is rated at CR –1; ¼ (1 –2 for character numbers; 1 --> ½ --> ¼) and weighs in at PEL ¼ (presumably). The hobgoblins are rated at CR 1 (0.9 for NPC fighter class + 0.2 for darkvision) and weigh in at EL 3 (1 + 2 for opponent numbers). The party nets 1200 XP (600 for each party member).

Ah! Now I see the doubling problem that everybody else has been talking about. Took me a while. Yup, I'm a fast one.

My next question is hopefully simple. I assigned a PEL of ¼ to the 1st level characters in my last example. Is that supposed to be possible?


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 23, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *In order for a DM to play dragons and super-high INT and WIS creatures correctly, he or she MUST use metagame thinking.  There is no way around it.  DMs simply can't be as smart as a Prismatic Dragon.  *




Let's see that dragon write a decent Excel spreadsheet. I know who's smarter 

Darren
Not threatened by the size of the dragons... IQ, honest.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 23, 2003)

demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Let's see that dragon write a decent Excel spreadsheet. I know who's smarter
> 
> ...




Given time, resources, and modern technology, I imagine a Prismatic Dragon could developa fusion reactor that powers the entire planet in under a week.  The dragon could also probably write an Excel spreadsheet that is beyond your comprehension.

You certainly do underestimate the Int 64 the thing has.  Let's put it this way, Albert Einstein, possibly one of the greatest thinkers of the modern world, would likely have Int 20-25, if that.  Now consider what someone with Int 64 could do.  We're talking about someone beyond human intelligence could EVER be in real life.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 23, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I wish I could answer that. Also, the problem I have is less with the top demons/devils, but more with the inermediate ones (like the Vrock, Glabrezu, etc).*




Maybe there could be a caveat that no monster can have a CR greater than double its Hit Dice, but I hate being so arbitrary.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I haven't worked out how they are costed, it's just that the final number seems to high - the most obvious thing to think of, for me, is the fact that they have many spell abilities, only a few of which they will get any real mileage out of, and even if all were equally useful, they only have a couple of rounds to use them (or longer, using the hit-and-run tactics for which they are suited - but even that doesn't necessarily take them far).*




Mmmm, maybe.

One thing I did notice from the Fiend Folio was that changes to the Outsider type, it is reduced to +0.65/HD (rather than +0.7/HD)



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I struggle to remember the exact order of events, but use of Time Stop (using the variant rule: no targetted spells), the Fighter's Devastating Critical ("Kill the Pit fiend!" Splat! "What Pit fiend? Dammit - No-one else within reach so I lose the rest of my attacks" . Dimensional anchor stopped one from teleporting, so the monk (!) wasted it. The sorcerer had used spectral hand to cohort using spectral hand to drop see invisibility on people, and the other sorcerer has see invisibility cast as a persistent spell.
> 
> One of the pit fiends did flee (after terrifying the cleric), once the other two were toast. *




Never have them melee powerful opponents unless they outnumber them. 

Devastating Critical is one hell of a feat it must be said. Monk Vorpal feat is broken though.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 23, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Ah! Now I see the doubling problem that everybody else has been talking about. Took me a while. Yup, I'm a fast one.*








			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *My next question is hopefully simple. I assigned a PEL of ¼ to the 1st level characters in my last example. Is that supposed to be possible? *




Personally I would always keep EL in terms of positive and negative numbers rather than fractions.


----------



## Zaknafein (Apr 23, 2003)

*I was curious...*

I know you redid the MM1 & MM2 with your revised CR system U_K but can you possibly leave an attachment with your great work?  

It would tremendously help the rest of us that are tring to do that... saves alot of the leg work... and I know it is long... but we dont have to print it out... just viewing it will be a great priviledge, atleast for me....

thanks in advance U_K

-in honor zaknafein


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 24, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Given time, resources, and modern technology, I imagine a Prismatic Dragon could developa fusion reactor that powers the entire planet in under a week.  The dragon could also probably write an Excel spreadsheet that is beyond your comprehension.
> 
> You certainly do underestimate the Int 64 the thing has.   *




Prove it  

Personally, I consider invention and genius to be different to intelligence. Otherwise, those prismatic dragons would _already[/] have invented fusion reactors.

[Edited to add, just in case it wasn't obvious - it was a joke!]
Darren_


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 24, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!
> Maybe there could be a caveat that no monster can have a CR greater than double its Hit Dice, but I hate being so arbitrary.
> 
> *




Sometging like that sounds the way to go, bu I understand your concern. 

*



			One thing I did notice from the Fiend Folio was that changes to the Outsider type, it is reduced to +0.65/HD (rather than +0.7/HD)
		
Click to expand...


*
I haven't seen the FF. Can you share what those changes are?
Based on Savage Species, it looks like outsiders and dragons will be getting a lot fewer skill points in 3.5E, unless those rules are modified.

*



			Devastating Critical is one hell of a feat it must be said. Monk Vorpal feat is broken though.
		
Click to expand...


*
I agree. With Devastating Critical, I've changed it so if the save is failed, the creature isn't killed: it takes an extra 1d6 damage per level of the attacker (on top of normal critical damage). I do Vorpal attacks the same way, but no save is required (and I'm wondering if one should be).
By the way, you put some changes to to epic feats. Have you thoght about altering Overwhelming Critical? (Or, as it should be known, Underwhelming Critical)

Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 24, 2003)

*Re: I was curious...*

Hi Zaknafein mate! 



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *I know you redid the MM1 & MM2 with your revised CR system*




Well, I didn't redo the whole of MM2, just some of the more powerful creatures. Also there is no likelihood of MM2 entering the SRD anytime soon so don't expect me to detail any of those.



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *U_K but can you possibly leave an attachment with your great work?*




Well, remember that I revised all the MM CRs under the auspices of a previous version. Meaning I would more or less have to check every entry again, something I am not in any immediate hurry to do. 



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *It would tremendously help the rest of us that are tring to do that... saves alot of the leg work... and I know it is long... but we dont have to print it out... just viewing it will be a great priviledge, at least for me....*




I'll see what I can do over the next week. 

The problem is that I don't want to have to revise all the CRs (again) unless I am positive we have the CR factors 100% perfect this time, and as you can tell by this thread discussion is still ongoing on one or two issues.



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *thanks in advance U_K *




Wait until I get it done, then thank me.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 24, 2003)

*Re: ECL calculation and Demons*

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Sometging like that sounds the way to go, bu I understand your concern. *




Exactly, then people simply unload the special abilities onto monsters they are creating and they don't have to pay for them past a certain point. The idea is inherantly broken. I must have been nuts even mentioning it. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I haven't seen the FF. Can you share what those changes are?
> Based on Savage Species, it looks like outsiders and dragons will be getting a lot fewer skill points in 3.5E, unless those rules are modified.*




I haven't checked all the monster types but Outsiders now get:

(2 x Int mod) x (HD +3)

Dragons are the same (as 3.0), if not fractionally better.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I agree. With Devastating Critical, I've changed it so if the save is failed, the creature isn't killed: it takes an extra 1d6 damage per level of the attacker (on top of normal critical damage).*




Doesn't that actually completely destroy the feat though!?



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I do Vorpal attacks the same way, but no save is required (and I'm wondering if one should be).*




So you use the vorpal feat but it doesn't actually decapitate!?

Wouldn't you just be better ignoring both feats and removing them from your list?



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *By the way, you put some changes to to epic feats. Have you thoght about altering Overwhelming Critical? (Or, as it should be known, Underwhelming Critical) *




I mention in the revised (epic) feats section all the changes I would make.

One thing I should have added was that you should remove the Vorpal feat from the list and make it a deific ability (SDA). Its much too powerful.

Regarding Overwhelming Critical I have done the math and increasing the actual critical multiplier is too powerful...for a feat anyway.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 24, 2003)

*Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!
> Exactly, then people simply unload the special abilities onto monsters they are creating and they don't have to pay for them past a certain point. The idea is inherantly broken. I must have been nuts even mentioning it.
> *



 

*



			I haven't checked all the monster types but Outsiders now get:

(2 x Int mod) x (HD +3)

Dragons are the same (as 3.0), if not fractionally better.
		
Click to expand...


*In Savage Species, Dragons and and Fey get 
(6 x Int mod) x (HD +3)
and everyone else gets the total you quote. Looks like that'll be the new rule.

*



			Doesn't that actually completely destroy the feat though!?
		
Click to expand...


*
Hardly. He does around 30 points on a normal hit, 70 on a critical, and 150 on a critical where the creature fails its FORT. It's not a negligible increase, an for many creatures it does lead to an instant kill (especially if he has hit it once or twice before - which isn't uncommon: after all, not every hit is a critical).

I use a modified version of the rule on WoC website for save or die spells too - they typically do around 300 points, rather than an outright kill, on a failed save.

(I should also point out, that these don't alter the Pit Fien example, since at their hit points, these totals have the same effect: instant kill)

*



			So you use the vorpal feat but it doesn't actually decapitate!?
		
Click to expand...


*
Yes - it's a vicious, slashing blow to the neck - if it does enough hit points, it decapitated, but if not, it's a vicious blow that _almost_ decapitated.
I treat vorpal blades the same.

*



			Wouldn't you just be better ignoring both feats and removing them from your list?
		
Click to expand...


*
I think these changes are worthwhile - the players thought so. Any increase in damage is still an increase in damage, after all - and doubling the damage of a critical hit (tripling for the monk) is definitely worth it.

*



			I mention in the revised (epic) feats section all the changes I would make.

One thing I should have added was that you should remove the Vorpal feat from the list and make it a deific ability (SDA). Its much too powerful.
		
Click to expand...


*
Treating it similarly to the devastating critical works for me, and gives the monk smething to aim for to increase his damage. Though I could go with banning it if I started another game.

*



			Regarding Overwhelming Critical I have done the math and increasing the actual critical multiplier is too powerful...for a feat anyway. 

Click to expand...


*
That's something I've avoided because it gets too difficult to balance the axes and swords (increasing a crit mult from 2 to 3 should be met with axes increasing from 3 to 5, and that's a bit extreme).
I was toyng with having overwhelming critical add a set amount of damage, like half BAB or level, but my game will not go above 30th level - in a game which allows higher levels I can see that not being attractive. But _anything_ is better than a puny +1d6 for an epic feat, that only applies when you get a critical!

Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*

Hi there mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *In Savage Species, Dragons and and Fey get
> (6 x Int mod) x (HD +3)
> and everyone else gets the total you quote. Looks like that'll be the new rule.*




Yep.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Hardly. He does around 30 points on a normal hit, 70 on a critical, and 150 on a critical where the creature fails its FORT. It's not a negligible increase, an for many creatures it does lead to an instant kill (especially if he has hit it once or twice before - which isn't uncommon: after all, not every hit is a critical).
> 
> I use a modified version of the rule on WoC website for save or die spells too - they typically do around 300 points, rather than an outright kill, on a failed save.*




Seems to remove the 'spirit' of the idea though.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Yes - it's a vicious, slashing blow to the neck - if it does enough hit points, it decapitated, but if not, it's a vicious blow that almost decapitated.
> I treat vorpal blades the same.*




Seems overly revisive. I mean if you do enough damage to an opponent you can relate how its sliced in twain - at that point it doesn't really matter.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I think these changes are worthwhile - the players thought so. Any increase in damage is still an increase in damage, after all - and doubling the damage of a critical hit (tripling for the monk) is definitely worth it.*




Yes but my point is it totally changes the nature of the ability so much so that retaining the name is pointless...

...but if your players are happy then by all means go for it.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Treating it similarly to the devastating critical works for me, and gives the monk smething to aim for to increase his damage. Though I could go with banning it if I started another game.*




Perhaps you would critical for maximum damage or something like that.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *That's something I've avoided because it gets too difficult to balance the axes and swords (increasing a crit mult from 2 to 3 should be met with axes increasing from 3 to 5, and that's a bit extreme).
> I was toyng with having overwhelming critical add a set amount of damage, like half BAB or level, but my game will not go above 30th level - in a game which allows higher levels I can see that not being attractive. But _anything_ is better than a puny +1d6 for an epic feat, that only applies when you get a critical! *




I have a deific ability called Obliterating Critical that doubles the critical multiplier. I have found that multiplying it is actually easier to balance than adding to it.


----------



## Knight Otu (Apr 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I haven't checked all the monster types but Outsiders now get:
> 
> (2 x Int mod) x (HD +3)
> ...




WARNING! ERROR! (I'd like to add a bilnking style to that )

The Savage Species table is in error (the same applies to the Fiend Folio table as far as I heard).
Outsiders get (8 + Int) * (HD + 3) Skill points.
Undead get (4 + Int) * (HD + 3) Skill points.
Fey and Dragons get (6 + Int) * (HD + 3) Skill points.
The rest gets (2 + Int) * (HD + 3) Skill points.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi there mate!
> *



Hello! 

*



			Seems to remove the 'spirit' of the idea though.
		
Click to expand...


*
Just a matter of perception. It's still a 'devastating critical'.

*



			Seems overly revisive. I mean if you do enough damage to an opponent you can relate how its sliced in twain - at that point it doesn't really matter.
		
Click to expand...


*
It can matter - it depends how you put them back together. You can't bring a decaptitated corpse back with raise dead.
So it can sometimes matter (though admittedly, not often at the kind of levels these abilities are encountered).

*



			Yes but my point is it totally changes the nature of the ability so much so that retaining the name is pointless...

...but if your players are happy then by all means go for it.
		
Click to expand...


*
Which is another way of saying, you're wrong but have fun  

*



			I have a deific ability called Obliterating Critical that doubles the critical multiplier. I have found that multiplying it is actually easier to balance than adding to it.
		
Click to expand...


*
It's easier to implement; but to be pointlessly pedantic it's not properly balanced, though.
When taking critical damage into account, the average damage for both swords and axes is the same. Under your system, it isn't. Not quite. But if it works for you  
(Joking aside, I think the divergence is not a big deal.)

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons*



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *
> 
> WARNING! ERROR! (I'd like to add a bilnking style to that )
> 
> ...




This is interesting. I was concerned that Outsiders in particular seemed hurt by the savage species table. Do you have a source for this?

Darren


----------



## Knight Otu (Apr 26, 2003)

If you check every other table in SavSpe, you will see that outsiders always get the 8 skill points, and that undead always get the 4 skill points.

In most cases, when you reverse engineer the stats from the Fiend Folio, you should come to that conclusion (not that you have to do that...).

Finally, on the SavSpe boards, Rich Redman said that it was an error.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 26, 2003)

*back to the CR system*

I mentioned I'd probably find something else to moan about. 
I have two concerns - here's the first.

One thing that I'm undecided about is how well (or not) the doubling factor in  the CR system works, especially at the higher levels.

A Greater Barghest (CR11, EL14) is a hard (+4) challenge for a 5th level group (EL10).

By extension, 4 Greater Barghests (EL18) then should be a hard challenge for an 11th level group.

At this level, I can't say with any certainty if it's right or wrong, but it looks roughly in the right ballpark. It's also close to the official fiures (which would be EL5 and EL9 respectively)

However, going back to that Pit Fiend (and I'm assuming for this argument that the Pit Fiend CR is correct - whether it is or not is irrelevant for this discussion). 
The Pit Fiend (CR27) is a hard challenge for 12th-13th level group. This seems reasonable (and even fits the official figures).

So, 4 Pit Fiends would be similarly hard challenge for a 24th-27th level group.
It seems very unlikely to me that any creature capable of a 50-50 battle with a team of 12th level pcs would provide a similar level of danger to a 24th level group, just by bumping the numbers up to 4.


It may be that epic and godlike monsters, as they increase in power from, say, CR 30-50+ do scale in a way that this relationship works - I can't say because I haven't seen them.  
But over the range of CR10-30, it doesn't look likely to me.

Any thoughts?

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 26, 2003)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *If you check every other table in SavSpe, you will see that outsiders always get the 8 skill points, and that undead always get the 4 skill points.
> 
> In most cases, when you reverse engineer the stats from the Fiend Folio, you should come to that conclusion (not that you have to do that...).
> 
> Finally, on the SavSpe boards, Rich Redman said that it was an error. *




Thanks. Those points are good enough for me.

Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 26, 2003)

*Re: back to the CR system*

Firstly thanks to Knight Otu for keeping us all up to date. 

Hiya demiurge mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I mentioned I'd probably find something else to moan about.
> I have two concerns - here's the first.
> 
> One thing that I'm undecided about is how well (or not) the doubling factor in  the CR system works, especially at the higher levels.
> ...




Monsters who gain more to their CR from Special Abilities/Qualities than from Hit Dice are inherantly more fragile. This is the price they pay for versatility. 

As we know, fragility can play tricks on the Challenge Rating.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: back to the CR system*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Firstly thanks to Knight Otu for keeping us all up to date.
> 
> Hiya demiurge mate!
> 
> ...




I was assuming the CRs were correctly balanced and taking such things into account. 
I think the problem would be much the same if I'd used, say, Giants (and even Dragons).  

Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 27, 2003)

*Re: back to the CR system*

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I was assuming the CRs were correctly balanced and taking such things into account.
> I think the problem would be much the same if I'd used, say, Giants (and even Dragons).  *




Well its easy to test:

Try 4 10th-level characters against a 20th-level character.

Try 4 15th-level characters against a 30th-level character.

Try 4 20th-level characters against a 40th-level character.

For simplicity sake you can use Fighters.

*Devastating Critical*

Incidently for Devastating Critical I have been thinking that the DC should perhaps not encompass +1/2 Level (or my change to 1/2 BAB).

I mean a 30th-level Fighter will probably have around 30 strength and critical hit probably 1 in 4 (likely at least once per round) so you already have a DC 35, meaning that anything weaker than yourself (in terms of Level/HD) is probably going to die with a single critical hit (likely within one round).

I mean compared to a Dread weapon special ability which is *specifically targeted* at only one creature type and has a +7 bonus (not even counting an enchantment modifier) meaning you shouldn't even have one until a minimum of 29th-level.

Whereas Devastating Critical can be gained at 22nd-level. A PC fighter would almost certainly have a 28 or better strength meaning a DC of 30+ against *every* creature type*. Whilst the Dread weapon 'officially' has a DC of 27 against a single creature type. Obviously the Devastating Critical is therefore broken.

*Excepting those immune to Crits which admittedly the Dread weapon affects (at no extra cost) provided it is the chosen creature type.

From now on I advocate Devastating Critical is calculated as follows:

DC = 10 + Str Bonus.

Any comments?


----------



## Anubis (Apr 28, 2003)

*Wealth*

I thought I should point out, UK, that your system for determining wealth sucks and is WAY off what can be considered balanced in any way.

First off, you have an exponential increase in wealth.  This makes wealth difficult to manage in any way at higher levels.

My main problem, however, comes with your numbers with NPC wealth.  You see, the problem lies in specific levels.  At the lowest and the highest levels, you give NPCs hardly any wealth whatsoever.  This problem persists at middle levels, but isn't nearly as bad.  A Level 2 NPC gets gets a paltry 100 gp, which is less than most of them get at Level 1!  At Level 3, the NPCs get a mere 337 gp.  At Level 4, this increases to 800 gp.  I'm sorry, but these amounts of wealth aren't worth ANYTHING to CR/EL.  Nothing WHATSOEVER.  100?  337?  This won't buy much of anything!  A normal weapon and a normal cheap suit of armor and shield and your basics, and nothing more.  Level 1 characters have this amount of wealth.  Yet the NPCs pay a (relatively) heavy cost in CR/EL for these amounts.  Just the same, let's take a Level 50 character.  PC wealth is 12,500,000 gp.  NPC wealth is 1,562,500 gp.  Twelve times the wealth at Level 50?  Wait a sec, isn't PC wealth only worth DOUBLE NPC wealth when putting it on CR/EL?  See the problem?  Your numbers do not compute.

The only conceivable solution I can think is to determine NPC wealth by giving them exactly half what a PC of the same level would get.  That means at Level 2, an NPC will get 400 rather than 100.  At Level 3, it's 1350 rather than 337.  At Level 4, it's 3200 rather than 800.  This also makes the CR/EL numbers correct by giving PC wealth a value exactly double the value of NPC wealth.  I believe I have offered sufficient proof to prove my case.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Wealth*

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I thought I should point out, UK, that your system for determining wealth sucks and is WAY off what can be considered balanced in any way.*




Is that so...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *First off, you have an exponential increase in wealth.  This makes wealth difficult to manage in any way at higher levels.*




In what way?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *My main problem, however, comes with your numbers with NPC wealth.  You see, the problem lies in specific levels.  At the lowest and the highest levels, you give NPCs hardly any wealth whatsoever.  This problem persists at middle levels, but isn't nearly as bad.  A Level 2 NPC gets gets a paltry 100 gp, which is less than most of them get at Level 1!  At Level 3, the NPCs get a mere 337 gp.  At Level 4, this increases to 800 gp.  I'm sorry, but these amounts of wealth aren't worth ANYTHING to CR/EL.  Nothing WHATSOEVER.  100?  337?*




+0.1, +0.2, hardly a massive increase.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This won't buy much of anything!  A normal weapon and a normal cheap suit of armor and shield and your basics, and nothing more.  Level 1 characters have this amount of wealth.  Yet the NPCs pay a (relatively) heavy cost in CR/EL for these amounts.  Just the same, let's take a Level 50 character.  PC wealth is 12,500,000 gp.  NPC wealth is 1,562,500 gp.  Twelve times the wealth at Level 50?  Wait a sec, isn't PC wealth only worth DOUBLE NPC wealth when putting it on CR/EL?  See the problem?  Your numbers do not compute.
> 
> The only conceivable solution I can think is to determine NPC wealth by giving them exactly half what a PC of the same level would get.  That means at Level 2, an NPC will get 400 rather than 100.  At Level 3, it's 1350 rather than 337.  At Level 4, it's 3200 rather than 800.  This also makes the CR/EL numbers correct by giving PC wealth a value exactly double the value of NPC wealth.  I believe I have offered sufficient proof to prove my case. *




Well you have raised some good points. However, the problem is you don't want to give NPCs half the wealth of the PCs, otherwise they simply have to 'roll over' a couple of NPCs and they have doubled through on their wealth!


----------



## seasong (Apr 28, 2003)

So, I was playing with classes and CRs again, and I realized what was bothering me.

Upper_Krust averages the CR bonus of all levels for expedient math. At 20th level, the Fighter (with no racial bonuses) is CR 20.26, spot on. But at first level, he's CR 2.455.

0.3 - d10 HD*
0.15 - BAB +1
0.125 - Fort +2
0.2 - base character feat
0.2 - bonus fighter feat
0.08 - 8 skill points
0.8 - all armors and shields
0.4 - all simple and martial weapons**
0.2 - level 1 wealth

* this does not account for the max 1st HD rule.
** technically, a single weapon is a feat, but in practice, "all simple weapons" is no better than "one good simple weapon".

Anyway, for simplicity sake, it's not generally worth worrying about - at the low levels, a little extra survivability's not a bad thing, and it all washes out at the higher levels. But it was what was bugging me .


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 28, 2003)

Hey Seasong mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *So, I was playing with classes and CRs again, and I realized what was bothering me.
> 
> Upper_Krust averages the CR bonus of all levels for expedient math. At 20th level, the Fighter (with no racial bonuses) is CR 20.26, spot on. But at first level, he's CR 2.455.
> 
> ...




I would have all armor and shields and all simple and martial weapons at +0.4. (total)



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Anyway, for simplicity sake, it's not generally worth worrying about - at the low levels, a little extra survivability's not a bad thing, and it all washes out at the higher levels. But it was what was bugging me . *




If you try and do it for every individual level you will only end up bogged down in a world of hurt.


----------



## seasong (Apr 28, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I would have all armor and shields and all simple and martial weapons at +0.4. (total)




Fair enough . I might argue for +0.6 (simple + martial weapons is better than a single feat, I think, since it also provides flexibility, so maybe +0.3 there; and while heavy armor doesn't provide a lot of advantage, the shield definitely gives some add, so maybe +0.3 there).



> If you try and do it for every individual level you will only end up bogged down in a world of hurt.



As I said .


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 28, 2003)

*weel, something else's been bugging me*

Hi there, Krust!

I've had some more time to look at the pdf, and here are a few questions/things that are bothering me.

First, an easy one: the CR's listed for the monsters. Does that include treasure? I know it does for the Balor and like, but what about a dragon? I mean, I often use the value of a creature's treasure to equip it. If the value of the gear is to be included in the CR, it becomes hard to know what CR really is, before you have calculated value of gear and stuff. And how much treasure should a creature have? Your CR are waaay above the MM's so it's really not possible to use the table in the DMG, IMO.

Next, I don't remember if you have mentioned that this will be fixed, but ability modifiers _really_ needs to affect ECL. It works fine for CR with the design parameters, but ECL is a bit different, IMO.
I mean, according to your design parameters, a medium race can have a 18 in all stats without it affecting CR (and thereby ECL). [only modifiers from templates affect CR, it seems] Now, without even considering that PC's have above average stats for _any_ race, I think I've illustrated that there's a major problem here.
So what you think?

he same goes with spell-like abilities...you charge +2ECL for fast healing 1, but the ability to cast (fx) _heal_ at will is only +0,25 CR!?!  
I think I've made my point.

(just for fun - just calculated the cost for being able to use as many different spells as a sorcerer, but at will. That came out at +7.875 CR for 20th lvl. A 20th lvl. sorcerer's spellcasting costs +7 CR. I think I would give up a lvl [in case we round up] for being able to use all the spells _at will_ .)

Speaking of spellcasting. Does the cost for integrated spellcasting lvls decrease after 20th lvl? I mean, the benefits are much less after 20th lvl.

Also, what's the CR of integrated Bard, Ranger and Paladin spell casting?

And finally...I think that the _very_ high CR's some monsters have been given according to your system, makes some of their abilities moot.
I'm thinking primarily of SR. A red dragons SR of 32 is worth jack  if it's CR is 56! The same can be said for a Pit Fiend, to a lesser degree. It is especially true for almost ALL the epic monsters (CR 90 Atropal, anyone?).
Now, I know that CR and EL are differently related in your system, but still.
The dragon's SR give it +2.2 CR, but it really doesn't help it, not at CR 56 where it won't make any challenge and certainly not use up 20% of resources, and not really at CR 28 where it shoul be 50/50
Any 28th lvl mage worth his salt will bypass SR 32 each and every time.
What I mean is, the SR's in the MM are based on WotC's CR system. Your system makes SR worthless for quite a lot of baddies, I think.
Comments?

I'm looking forward to your replies, and to digging even deeper into the system! 

Later,


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *A red dragons SR of 32 is worth jack  if it's CR is 56! *




CR 56 makes for Encounter Level 24. The SR is still effective.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Your system makes SR worthless for quite a lot of baddies, I think.
> Comments? *




Note the difficulty of the EL.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> CR 56 makes for Encounter Level 24. The SR is still effective.
> 
> *




And since it's EL24, that means it's a moderate encounter for a group of 56th level characters, against whom, that SR is useless.

Darren


----------



## Anubis (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> Hi there, Krust!
> 
> I've had some more time to look at the pdf, and here are a few questions/things that are bothering me.
> ...




I have mulled over this question as well, and although I don't know the *official* answer, I know the best answer.

You determine treasure as outlined in the DMG.  Use CR.  I know the numbers are higher, but also remember that this better shows the challenge.  For multiple creatures, determine overal CR/EL *as explained in the DMG and not by UK's system* for purposes of treasure.  That means two CR 10 creatures yield a Level 12 treasure, four CR 28 creatures yield a Level 32 treasure, etc.

These numbers work because UK's system actually gives MORE wealth to PCs and NPCs than the DMG does, so it balances out in the end.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> Next, I don't remember if you have mentioned that this will be fixed, but ability modifiers really needs to affect ECL. It works fine for CR with the design parameters, but ECL is a bit different, IMO.
> I mean, according to your design parameters, a medium race can have a 18 in all stats without it affecting CR (and thereby ECL). [only modifiers from templates affect CR, it seems] Now, without even considering that PC's have above average stats for any race, I think I've illustrated that there's a major problem here.
> So what you think?
> *




NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

Stop trying to put ability scores back in the equation!  At low levels, it BREAKS THE SYSTEM as I have proven time and again.  At high levels, it's meaningless.  It may not "compute" as well "on paper", but in use (when done properly and within proper parameters), not factoring in ability scores provides 100% accurate results.

For more, simply read all the posts on this topic and you will see my overwhelming proof.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> he same goes with spell-like abilities...you charge +2ECL for fast healing 1, but the ability to cast (fx) heal at will is only +0,25 CR!?!
> I think I've made my point.
> *




I agree with you here.  I don't think there should be any independent modifiers to ECL.  I am with kreynolds on this matter.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> (just for fun - just calculated the cost for being able to use as many different spells as a sorcerer, but at will. That came out at +7.875 CR for 20th lvl. A 20th lvl. sorcerer's spellcasting costs +7 CR. I think I would give up a lvl [in case we round up] for being able to use all the spells at will .)
> *




I can fix this.  Put "All rules herein are usable only in combination with DM common sense." on the rules, and problem solved.  If you don't break the parameters, there is no problem.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> Speaking of spellcasting. Does the cost for integrated spellcasting lvls decrease after 20th lvl? I mean, the benefits are much less after 20th lvl.
> 
> Also, what's the CR of integrated Bard, Ranger and Paladin spell casting?
> *




I would say no and they don't to the first question.  To the second question, I would say they're only worth 0.2 for Bard spells, 0.15 for Paladin spells, and 0.1 for Ranger spells.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> And finally...I think that the very high CR's some monsters have been given according to your system, makes some of their abilities moot.
> I'm thinking primarily of SR. A red dragons SR of 32 is worth jack  if it's CR is 56! The same can be said for a Pit Fiend, to a lesser degree. It is especially true for almost ALL the epic monsters (CR 90 Atropal, anyone?).
> Now, I know that CR and EL are differently related in your system, but still.
> ...




Well, I have brought this up before, but UK has assured me that changes to SR within his system will make it all clear.  I hope he's right, otherwise I'll be using EL instead of Levels for SR.  (That means creatures would get EL +X SR, and all checks would be made using EL.)

I hope he doesn't disappoint.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> I'm looking forward to your replies, and to digging even deeper into the system!
> 
> Later,
> *




I just can't wait for the damn thing to be published.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And since it's EL24, that means it's a moderate encounter for a group of 56th level characters, against whom, that SR is useless.
> 
> Darren *




Thanks. My point exactly.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Thanks. My point exactly. *




You're welcome  Although, since Anubis just said that the published version will take this into account, it may not be an issue. But the cost in the CR document uses the official SR's - so it's hard to judge the merits of whatever the solution is - we can only go by what we've seen.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I have mulled over this question as well, and although I don't know the *official* answer, I know the best answer.
> 
> ...




Thanks. I think this will work. So this means that the creasure value generated from the DMG is included in the CR from this system, or do I have to add the CR of the gear as well, which means recalculating over and over again?  Please explain it once more for the slow of mind....




			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> NO NO NO <snip no's>
> 
> Stop trying to put ability scores back in the equation!  At low levels, it BREAKS THE SYSTEM as I have proven time and again.  At high levels, it's meaningless.  It may not "compute" as well "on paper", but in use (when done properly and within proper parameters), not factoring in ability scores provides 100% accurate results.
> ...




Well, Anubis, I have read all the posts with your 'overwhelming' proof. And I basically agree.
But I'm not talking about CR, really - I'm talking about ECL. My question was, is U_K going to ensure that ability modifiers affect ECL? According to his system, CR should convert directly to ECL (with the exception of regen and fast healing). This, IMO, just doesn't hold up when applied to PC's. The arguments for this is related to the increased ECL for regen etc.)
A high ability modifier might not have a great effect for CR, but it sure as hell has for the PC that has scores 8-10 higher than the rest of the party.

I would suggest that modifiers outside of those originating from size (+8 str, -2 dex, +4 con for medium to large fx) is added to ECL. This would give more balanced results, IMO. 




			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> I agree with you here.  I don't think there should be any independent modifiers to ECL.  I am with kreynolds on this matter.
> *




Thanks. But my point was also that this ability is extremely powerful (worth far more than fast healing with or without special ECL modification), yet everyone in a party could pocess it without it affecting the party's EL!?
And yes, your DM common sense argument is valid here as well, but the example does not have to be so extreme as _heal_ to be unbalancing. I am waiting to hear what U_K has to say about this.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> I can fix this.  Put "All rules herein are usable only in combination with DM common sense." on the rules, and problem solved.  If you don't break the parameters, there is no problem.
> *




Thanks, o omnipotent oracle. I was trying to illustrate that the cost (and especially ECL) of spell-like abilities might be too low. Besides, this is not breaking the design parameters, but just ultra-meta gaming.
You know, sometimes you have to exaggerate to drive home a point - as I think you well know.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> I would say no and they don't to the first question.  To the second question, I would say they're only worth 0.2 for Bard spells, 0.15 for Paladin spells, and 0.1 for Ranger spells.
> *




Why no to the first question?
Second question estimations seem fair. Thanks.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> Well, I have brought this up before, but UK has assured me that changes to SR within his system will make it all clear.  I hope he's right, otherwise I'll be using EL instead of Levels for SR.  (That means creatures would get EL +X SR, and all checks would be made using EL.)
> 
> I hope he doesn't disappoint.
> *




Me too  



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> I just can't wait for the damn thing to be published. *




ditto.

Thanks for your answer.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Hi there, Krust!*




Hi Sorcica mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I've had some more time to look at the pdf, and here are a few questions/things that are bothering me.*




Sure fire away.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *First, an easy one: the CR's listed for the monsters. Does that include treasure?*




Not unless the treasure is outlined in the description...as with the Balor's sword, Astral deva's Mace etc.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I know it does for the Balor and like, but what about a dragon?*




How could I possibly anticipate how the DM was going to outfit an individual dragon?



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I mean, I often use the value of a creature's treasure to equip it. If the value of the gear is to be included in the CR, it becomes hard to know what CR really is, before you have calculated value of gear and stuff. And how much treasure should a creature have? Your CR are waaay above the MM's so it's really not possible to use the table in the DMG, IMO.*




Well remember Dragons are NPCs so I would suggest you halve their CRs then use the new figure on the Treasure Tables.

I'll add that into the final version for clarity.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Next, I don't remember if you have mentioned that this will be fixed, but ability modifiers really needs to affect ECL. It works fine for CR with the design parameters, but ECL is a bit different, IMO.*




Ability Scores *do* affect ECL.

I'll make this a lot clearer in the final version.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I mean, according to your design parameters, a medium race can have a 18 in all stats without it affecting CR (and thereby ECL). [only modifiers from templates affect CR, it seems] Now, without even considering that PC's have above average stats for any race, I think I've illustrated that there's a major problem here. So what you think?*




They do add to ECL, I'll just have to make this clearer.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *he same goes with spell-like abilities...you charge +2 ECL for fast healing 1, but the ability to cast (fx) heal at will is only +0,25 CR!?!
> I think I've made my point.*




Well the ECL to cast heal at will would be ECL +1.45

6th-level spell +1.2 ECL (for highest SLA)
Heal at will +0.25 (depending on level, I suppose you chose minimum).

Another point I need to clarify.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *(just for fun - just calculated the cost for being able to use as many different spells as a sorcerer, but at will. That came out at +7.875 CR for 20th lvl. A 20th lvl. sorcerer's spellcasting costs +7 CR. I think I would give up a lvl [in case we round up] for being able to use all the spells at will .)*








			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Speaking of spellcasting. Does the cost for integrated spellcasting lvls decrease after 20th lvl? I mean, the benefits are much less after 20th lvl.*








			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Also, what's the CR of integrated Bard, Ranger and Paladin spell casting?*




0.15; 0.075, 0.075.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *And finally...I think that the very high CR's some monsters have been given according to your system, makes some of their abilities moot.*




Handled through the relationship between CR and EL.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I'm thinking primarily of SR. A red dragons SR of 32 is worth jack  if it's CR is 56! The same can be said for a Pit Fiend, to a lesser degree.*




The point at which a monster represents a moderate challenge it should get beaten.

Though if I was assigning SR I would have it at HD + 12 (as per the Design Parameters).



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *It is especially true for almost ALL the epic monsters (CR 90 Atropal, anyone?).*




At CR 90 it is a moderate challenge. Try it against a party of 45th-levelers.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Now, I know that CR and EL are differently related in your system, but still.
> 
> The dragon's SR give it +2.2 CR, but it really doesn't help it, not at CR 56 where it won't make any challenge and certainly not use up 20% of resources, and not really at CR 28 where it should be 50/50*




1. The dragons SR hardly impacts its EL at all.
2. I didn't assign the SR, I simply rated it.
3. Dragons do not live by SR alone.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Any 28th lvl mage worth his salt will bypass SR 32 each and every time.
> What I mean is, the SR's in the MM are based on WotC's CR system. Your system makes SR worthless for quite a lot of baddies, I think.
> Comments?*




Give them SR based on HD +12.

Of course this reduces the SR of some of the outsiders in the MM but technically their problems all stem from having a low proportion of their CR derived from HD - making them inherantly more fragile.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I'm looking forward to your replies, and to digging even deeper into the system!*




Appreciate the feedback mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Later, *




Cya.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 29, 2003)

*July - its official*

Hi all! 

AV commented in this thread about the SRD update.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=865618#post865618

Looks like July.

If the ELH is updated first it would be possible for me to release the grimoire (section 2) and possibly the bestiary (section 3) prior to the main rules.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> How could I possibly anticipate how the DM was going to outfit an individual dragon?*




You don't need to. That's the point. I'm talking about *value* of treasure. How that value is spent is nonimportant for this question.
But again, is the average value of treasure for a dragons (½)CR included in the CR 56? And for the rest of the monsters in the pdf?




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well remember Dragons are NPCs so I would suggest you halve their CRs then use the new figure on the Treasure Tables.
> *




Sorry, I don't get that. Do I then figure in that value in the dragon's final CR? 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I'll add that into the final version for clarity.
> *




Well, I think you better 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Ability Scores do affect ECL.
> 
> I'll make this a lot clearer in the final version.
> *




good



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> They do add to ECL, I'll just have to make this clearer.
> *




also good



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well the ECL to cast heal at will would be ECL +1.45
> 
> 6th-level spell +1.2 ECL (for highest SLA)
> ...




My mistake, I forgot about the +1.2. Still, +1.45 for using heal at will seems wrong when regen 1 would be +2.1 ECL.
I really like your CR Calculation system, but I feel that CR and ECL costs need to be different for certain abilities. Now, I'm aware of the heated discussion regarding fast healing and regen, but those abilities are not the only ones that need careful consideration concerning ECL, IMO.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 0.15; 0.075, 0.075.
> *




Thanks. What about my question of caster lvls above 20?  



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Handled through the relationship between CR and EL.
> 
> 
> ...




I disagree. The SR is all but useless at the given CRs. Yes, the creature should be beaten, but it should still represent a 20% resource cost at the given CR/EL. Since the SR becomes useless, it shouldn't affect CR. At the CR where the monster should be a 50/50 encounter, the SR is almost useless as well, as I pointed out in my previous post.

I just find it wrong that SR should affect CR when it won't help the creature...actually you could say that it works against the creature. SR raises the CR, thereby making the creature's would-be attackers more powerful (higher CR) and the SR won't help it. Without the SR (that doesn't help it anyway) it would have a lower CR and thus meet weaker oppposition. Am I making any sense?

I'm not sure HD+12 is the solution, though it sounds okay. The dragons SR will still be worthless, even though its CR would increase by +2 (and thus the party would be 58th lvl and give it an even bigger thrashing......).

Besides, I really don't like that one has to change a monster's entry in the MM to make it work with this system.




			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> At CR 90 it is a moderate challenge. Try it against a party of 45th-levelers.
> *




I don't remember the Atropal's SR, but I think that my points above are valid here as well.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 1. The dragons SR hardly impacts its EL at all.
> 2. I didn't assign the SR, I simply rated it.
> 3. Dragons do not live by SR alone.
> *




No, but without SR they won't live long at all. I know that you just rated it, and that it doesn't affect its EL very much. But, and this leads to my true point, I just realise:
A 56th lvl party might be EL 24 as the dragon is, but any 56th lvl spellcaster is going to ignore the SR. Ditto for a 28th lvl caster. Somehow the check for SR needs to be related to EL instead of lvl, otherwise the huge ranges in CR versus EL is going to make SR useless.
For example, as CRs increase, there might be a span of 50 lvls or so that still equates to the same EL. But 50 lvls are pretty important when determining whether SR is effective or not. So one party equal to EL 30 might easily defeat a creature's SR, but another party equal to EL might need a 19 or 20! See what I mean?
I am very curious as to what you think of these observations.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Give them SR based on HD +12.
> 
> Of course this reduces the SR of some of the outsiders in the MM but technically their problems all stem from having a low proportion of their CR derived from HD - making them inherantly more fragile.
> *




Hm...would make the dragon's SR almost unbeatable by a 28th lvl party (the 50/50 encounter), and still useless against the 56th lvl party, even though the dragon would now be CR 58.

I think the problem is that CRs and ELs are so much closer in the core rules, so that the dragons SR is effective at _all_ (well, almost)the EL's where a party is supposed to meet a great wyrm red dragon (lvls 19-30).

Agree about the wuzz outsiders. I always beef them up, normally by giving extra HD or almost max hp.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Appreciate the feedback mate!
> *




Anytime - looking forward to your replies.


----------



## kreynolds (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *And since it's EL24, that means it's a moderate encounter for a group of 56th level characters, against whom, that SR is useless. *




How's that SR look against a group of 30th level characters? CR 56 vs PL 56 is not a big deal, at least not traditionally. That's not a particularly challenging encounter, so I wouldn't expect its SR to be through the roof.


----------



## Anubis (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Ability Scores do affect ECL.
> 
> I'll make this a lot clearer in the final version.
> ...




UK, I hope you're talking about racial modifiers to ability scores and NOT the standard array/rolled ability scores.  Otherwise you defeat the whole damn purpose of not including them in CR!

To be honest, I don't think there should be ANY ECL modifiers.  CR should equal ECL, plain and simple.  A creature of any specific CR is supposed to equal to a character of that level.  To give an ECL on top of that would make such creatures look more powerful and would gauge them as more powerful than they should be.  What is the sense in saying that an ogre is equal to a Level 4 PC human but not a non-classed PC ogre?  Don't make sense . . .

Better yet, use the troll.  Suddednly, the troll is equal to a PC of the same level but NOT to the PC troll?  Sounds a bit silly.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well remember Dragons are NPCs so I would suggest you halve their CRs then use the new figure on the Treasure Tables.
> 
> I'll add that into the final version for clarity.
> *




I thought you hated being arbitrary?  This sounds like a dreadfully arbitrary to me.  Not only that, but it kills treasure earnings at low levels to the point where PCs can't keep up with your numbers for wealth.  Under your system, PCs will still genereally be facing things of nearly equal CR until the extremely high levels (100+).  Treasure is assigned based on the CR where the monster is a 20% challenge, not a 50/50 challenge.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> To be honest, I don't think there should be ANY ECL modifiers.  CR should equal ECL, plain and simple.  A creature of any specific CR is supposed to equal to a character of that level.  To give an ECL on top of that would make such creatures look more powerful and would gauge them as more powerful than they should be.  What is the sense in saying that an ogre is equal to a Level 4 PC human but not a non-classed PC ogre?  Don't make sense . . .
> 
> ...




But the CR for the Ogre and Troll are based on size as well, which include some higher than core races stats. So a non-classed ogre is equal lvl 4 PC etc.
I'm talking about if the ogre had 20 int, 20 wis and 20 cha fx, since that is not included in the CR for size.

(sure hope I'm getting UK's system right.... 

later,


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*

Hi Sorcica mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *You don't need to. That's the point. I'm talking about *value* of treasure. How that value is spent is nonimportant for this question.
> But again, is the average value of treasure for a dragons (½)CR included in the CR 56? And for the rest of the monsters in the pdf?*




No, because the outlining of wealth does not necessarily equate to equipment.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Sorry, I don't get that. Do I then figure in that value in the dragon's final CR?*




If you determine items from the treasure that the dragon is using then by means all factor them to CR. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *My mistake, I forgot about the +1.2. Still, +1.45 for using heal at will seems wrong when regen 1 would be +2.1 ECL.
> I really like your CR Calculation system, but I feel that CR and ECL costs need to be different for certain abilities. Now, I'm aware of the heated discussion regarding fast healing and regen, but those abilities are not the only ones that need careful consideration concerning ECL, IMO.*




Indeed, SLAs are ever a thorny subject.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Thanks. What about my question of caster lvls above 20?  *




I'll look into it, but if we change it we inevitably change the dynamic of the +1 CR/Level which is probably not a good idea.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I disagree. The SR is all but useless at the given CRs. Yes, the creature should be beaten, but it should still represent a 20% resource cost at the given CR/EL. Since the SR becomes useless, it shouldn't affect CR. At the CR where the monster should be a 50/50 encounter, the SR is almost useless as well, as I pointed out in my previous post.*




So what you're saying is not only do I have to completely fix CR and EL but I also have to revise the entire monster manual (and every subsequent monster book). 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I just find it wrong that SR should affect CR when it won't help the creature...*




But it doesn't affect EL.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *actually you could say that it works against the creature. SR raises the CR, thereby making the creature's would-be attackers more powerful (higher CR) and the SR won't help it. Without the SR (that doesn't help it anyway) it would have a lower CR and thus meet weaker oppposition. Am I making any sense?*




Yes, but the effect upon EL is negligable.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I'm not sure HD+12 is the solution, though it sounds okay. The dragons SR will still be worthless, even though its CR would increase by +2 (and thus the party would be 58th lvl and give it an even bigger thrashing......).*




It wouldn't affect EL at all.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Besides, I really don't like that one has to change a monster's entry in the MM to make it work with this system.*




You don't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *No, but without SR they won't live long at all. I know that you just rated it, and that it doesn't affect its EL very much. But, and this leads to my true point, I just realise:
> 
> A 56th lvl party might be EL 24 as the dragon is, but any 56th lvl spellcaster is going to ignore the SR. Ditto for a 28th lvl caster. Somehow the check for SR needs to be related to EL instead of lvl, otherwise the huge ranges in CR versus EL is going to make SR useless.
> For example, as CRs increase, there might be a span of 50 lvls or so that still equates to the same EL. But 50 lvls are pretty important when determining whether SR is effective or not. So one party equal to EL 30 might easily defeat a creature's SR, but another party equal to EL might need a 19 or 20! See what I mean?
> I am very curious as to what you think of these observations.*




We had this debate six months ago, if people want to use that idea then go for it.

Incidently I think I have just solved one of the problems I had with the idea. I suppose I could always add this in as an optional idea - just like Damage Reduction.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Hm...would make the dragon's SR almost unbeatable by a 28th lvl party (the 50/50 encounter), and still useless against the 56th lvl party, even though the dragon would now be CR 58.*




So this 56th-level party is going to be packed with single class spellcasters?



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I think the problem is that CRs and ELs are so much closer in the core rules, so that the dragons SR is effective at all (well, almost) the EL's where a party is supposed to meet a great wyrm red dragon (lvls 19-30).
> 
> Agree about the wuzz outsiders. I always beef them up, normally by giving extra HD or almost max hp.*




What you could have is for monsters to have their HD represent half their CR and then have SR = HD + 12.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Anytime - looking forward to your replies. *


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*

Hello mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, I hope you're talking about racial modifiers to ability scores and NOT the standard array/rolled ability scores.  Otherwise you defeat the whole damn purpose of not including them in CR!*




Yes.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I thought you hated being arbitrary?  This sounds like a dreadfully arbitrary to me.*




How? NPC character wealth is half PC wealth so why not have NPC treasure treated the same.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Not only that, but it kills treasure earnings at low levels to the point where PCs can't keep up with your numbers for wealth.  Under your system, PCs will still genereally be facing things of nearly equal CR until the extremely high levels (100+).  Treasure is assigned based on the CR where the monster is a 20% challenge, not a 50/50 challenge. *




How, when many of the Monster CRs are much higher...?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Apr 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: weel, something else's been bugging me*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No, because the outlining of wealth does not necessarily equate to equipment.
> 
> ...




Okay, that makes sense. BTW, most intelligent monsters use their wealth for equipment, right? (at least they do in my world...)



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Indeed, SLAs are ever a thorny subject.
> *




Indeed. Any solutions?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I'll look into it, but if we change it we inevitably change the dynamic of the +1 CR/Level which is probably not a good idea.
> *




I can see that. Maybe let the creature get bonus feats as a equivalent spellcaster? (i.e. every 3rd lvl for wiz and sor)



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> So what you're saying is not only do I have to completely fix CR and EL but I also have to revise the entire monster manual (and every subsequent monster book).
> *




If you don't mind 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> But it doesn't affect EL.
> 
> 
> ...




No, but don't you see that some parties will have an easy time at that EL while other parties will have a very hard time - even though they are both the same PEL?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> You don't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
> *









			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> So this 56th-level party is going to be packed with single class spellcasters?
> *




Not necessarily, I think 2 will do the job...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> What you could have is for monsters to have their HD represent half their CR and then have SR = HD + 12.
> *




yeah, that should do it.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> *




 right back at ya


----------



## Upper_Krust (Apr 30, 2003)

*Optional Spell Resistance*

Hi all! 

A number of people have commented that Spell resistance should be tied to Encounter Levels rather than Challenge Ratings (or Hit Dice I suppose).

But until recently I wasn't happy with how this affected certain feats (spell penetration; greater spell penentration or [epic] improved spell resistance etc. or indeed similar divine abilities) and magic items.

However, let me know what you think of this solution:

All spell resistance is equal to challenge rating. 
All spell penetration is equal to caster level converted directly to challenge rating.

Then you convert everything to Encounter Level and use the difference needing a base 11 to penetrate (+/- EL difference)

eg. 20th-level Wizard with spell penetration and greater spell penetration feats. SP = 24 (which converts to CR 24) = EL 19.

Barbazu = CR 11 = EL 14
Pit Fiend = CR 27 = EL 19
GW Red Dragon = CR 56 = EL 24
Atropal = CR 90 = EL 26
Hecatonchiere = CR 126 = CR 28

The 20th-level wizard needs:

6 to affect Barbazu (75% chance)
11 to affect Pit Fiend (50% chance)
16 to affect GW Red Dragon (25% chance)
18 to affect Atropal (15% chance)
20 to affect Hecatonchiere (5% chance)

Any comments?

One problem is how SR is then factored to CR. My initial idea would be that it increases EL by one. Which we can reverse engineer to find the CR modifier.

eg. GW Red Dragon is CR 54 (EL 23) without factoring SR. But applying SR makes it EL 24 (and arguably CR 62 since at that measure of power EL is increased every 8 CR).

Any more comments?

Personally I really like both solutions, brings back a 1st Ed. dynamic.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (May 1, 2003)

I like it too.
It may be a little math intensive, though. Not sure how to handle that.
It also takes away the certainty for high lvl casters that they'll defeat a certain SR everytime (if I remember correctly, the wiz would beat the Barbazu's SR every time?) - which I feel is pretty cool. That helps keeping SR valuable, even if it's low andstatic (fx a succubus's SR 12).

Good work, mate!

When will we see a 4th edition of the pdf? Or will there just be the final version in the IH?

BTW, any idea as to the prize of the IH? Can't wait! Damn annoying that I only recently have discovered this system  

Later,


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 1, 2003)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> *When will we see a 4th edition of the pdf? Or will there just be the final version in the IH?*



Don't give him any ideas!



This system still needs to be extensively play-tested and carefully examined. If we can get it standing up at every level (low-levels and high levels), without depending on arbitrary rulings, I can seriously see it revolutionizing Challenge Ratings (no joke).

Speaking of low-levels...

Upper_Krust.

After recently dungeon mastering a party from 1st to 3rd level, who primarily went up against hobgoblins, not only did it became clear to me that darkvision should not be added to their CR, but also that, yes indeed, all fractions should be rounded down (as per the popular consensus).

To be truly consistent -- and universal for that matter -- I think any creature (player character race, monster, or monster player character race) that advances "as character class" (like hobgoblins) should not add their racial ability bonuses to CR ... if their racial abilities do not exceed +0.5.

Right now you feel this way about the standard player character races. I think it should apply to all creatures.

Consequently this would make...

A 1st level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR ½.
A 2nd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 1.
A 3rd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 2.

Giving XP rewards to a party of four based on these CR values, and using all of the popular minute changes discussed in this thread, have finally felt right in the calculations.

Hold on. That could all change in a second.

Look at these numbers...

-----

Four 1st level player characters against four 1st level fighter hobgoblins awards 225 XP each.

Four 2nd level player characters against four 2nd level fighter hobgoblins awards 150 XP each.

Four 3rd level player characters against four 3rd level fighter hobgoblins awards 450 XP each.

-----

225 --> 150 --> 450.

That's a weird dip and rebound (for what should be steadily decreasing XP values).

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think that either monster *numbers* (Table 1–2) have to be calculated like character *numbers* (Table 1–3), or that character numbers have to be calculated like monster numbers. Either way, I think they have to be calculated the same way to avoid these weird anomalies.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 1, 2003)

I just ran the same calculations by adding darkvision CR +0.2 into the equations. The results look like this.

300 XP --> 600 XP --> 450 XP

In this case, the results spike at 2nd level, rather than drop. Still not right. Which brings me back to my original conclusion. Player characters and their opponent numbers should be calculated the same way (not on different charts with different modifiers).


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 1, 2003)

Hi Sorcica mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I like it too.*




Thanks mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *It may be a little math intensive, though. Not sure how to handle that.*




Well, as with CR/EL its relative. So you know that if Spell Penetration equals CR then you need an 11 to penetrate etc.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *It also takes away the certainty for high lvl casters that they'll defeat a certain SR everytime (if I remember correctly, the wiz would beat the Barbazu's SR every time?) - which I feel is pretty cool.*




I like that too. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *That helps keeping SR valuable, even if it's low and static (fx a succubus's SR 12).
> 
> Good work, mate!*




Glad you like it. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *When will we see a 4th edition of the pdf? Or will there just be the final version in the IH?*




I'm not sure yet. With the IH release now pencilled for July I may just wait until then to release V.4 ~ I am also considering sending it to Dragon magazine when I have it perfect.

I have also begun revising all the MM creatures, I'm about a third of the way through that.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *BTW, any idea as to the prize of the IH? Can't wait! *




I presume you mean the price...? I anticipate the first pdf section "Apotheosis" will be (approx.) $8 for 128 pages (20 of which will be the appendices).



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Damn annoying that I only recently have discovered this system  *








			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Later, *




Cya mate!


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 1, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Don't give him any ideas!
> 
> *








			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *This system still needs to be extensively play-tested and carefully examined. If we can get it standing up at every level (low-levels and high levels), without depending on arbitrary rulings, I can seriously see it revolutionizing Challenge Ratings (no joke).*




I thought it already had. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Speaking of low-levels...
> 
> Upper_Krust.
> 
> ...




As I suggested... 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Right now you feel this way about the standard player character races. I think it should apply to all creatures.*




Okay. I could stipulate that under NPCs.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Consequently this would make...
> 
> A 1st level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR ½.
> A 2nd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 1.
> ...




I'll look into it. Thanks for the feedback mate.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 2, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *A 1st level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR ½.
> A 2nd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 1.
> A 3rd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 2.
> 
> ...




I'm not following how you get those figures. Am I doing something wrong? Here's how I work it.

1st level party, EL1.
4 hobgoblins, EL1+4, then half the result: 150xp each.
(Unless you took CR.5 to equal CR0, and then added 4: that works).

2nd level party: EL5
Hobgobins, CR1 = EL1, then add +4 = 5.
Equal ELs, so 300xp x level divided by group = 150xp each.

3rd level party: EL 7
Hobgoblins: CL2, = EL5+4, so 450xp each.

Can you post what CR's these hobgoblins have, including fractions? I have a feeling these anomalies are occurring because of the way CR is rounded down, and it's possible they may be less problematic if some kind of fractional CR system is used below CR 4 (or at least CR2).

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Optional Spell Resistance*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> All spell resistance is equal to challenge rating.
> All spell penetration is equal to caster level converted directly to challenge rating.
> 
> ...




I think that effect of spell penetration-like bonuses should apply _after_ converting to EL. So the above wizard would use his base CR 20, then get a bonus afterwards.

(This also means you only need to work out CR -> EL once, and you don't have two separate values for the same character.)

I also think some comparson should be made based on the original SR - CR difference (using official MM figures).
Some creatures have higher spell resistance then others, relative to their CR, and this should be preserved.
A Drider, for example, has CR7 and SR14 - so the opponents it faces will generally get through,  but the occasional spell won't.
A Pit Fiend has CR16 and SR28, so 16th level casters need 12+ to get through - a tougher proposition.

So, if the Drider worked out as having CR7 and therefore EL 12, it's SR would be 19.
The Pit Fiend, with CR27 --> EL 19 would have SR of 31 (that +12 bonus).

The Feats, Spell penetration, etc, have a larger effect in this system, so perhaps should provide only have the bonus (+1 for basic Spell Penetration.
So, a 20th level wizard (EL18) would add +18 to SR checks; if he had Spell Penetration and Great Spell Penetration, he would add +20.

*



			One problem is how SR is then factored to CR. My initial idea would be that it increases EL by one. Which we can reverse engineer to find the CR modifier.
		
Click to expand...


*
With this suggestion, you could still use the original score, since it does apply in determining the final rating.

*



			Barbazu = CR 11 = EL 14
Pit Fiend = CR 27 = EL 19
GW Red Dragon = CR 56 = EL 24
Atropal = CR 90 = EL 26
Hecatonchiere = CR 126 = CR 28

The 20th-level wizard needs:

6 to affect Barbazu (75% chance)
11 to affect Pit Fiend (50% chance)
16 to affect GW Red Dragon (25% chance)
18 to affect Atropal (15% chance)
20 to affect Hecatonchiere (5% chance)
		
Click to expand...


*These figures become
Barbazu = CR 11 = EL 14 => (SR23-CR7 = +14) = SR 28
Pit Fiend = CR 27 = EL 19 => (SR28-CR16 = +12) = SR31
GW Red Dragon = CR 56 = EL 24 => (SR32-CR25) = SR31
Atropal = CR 90 = EL 26 => (SR42-CR30 = +12) = SR38
Hecatonchiere = CR 126 = CR 28=> (SR70-CR57) = SR41


The 20th-level wizard (with Great SP) needs:

8 to affect Barbazu (65% chance)
11 to affect Pit Fiend (50% chance)
11 to affect GW Red Dragon (50% chance)
18 to affect Atropal (15% chance)
21 to affect Hecatonchiere (5% chance)

The only one of these which is significantly affected over your figues is the dragon. But in the dragon and lesser cases, the chance is reduced from the standard rules, so having a 15+ required for the dragon doesn't seem justified.
Also, that Drider.
A CR7 Drider would be EL12. The 20th level wizard would actually fail to penetrate on 3 or less.
Under my suggestion, it's SR of 19 only allows a fail on a 1, as it would be under the normal rules. 

*



			Personally I really like both solutions, brings back a 1st Ed. dynamic. 

Click to expand...


*
I'm not over-keen on the "base 11" mechanic: it's extra arithmetic, and it's not intuitive. I think the 3e version of a set number that you roll and add another number to beat is easier.

Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Optional Spell Resistance*

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I think that effect of spell penetration-like bonuses should apply after converting to EL. So the above wizard would use his base CR 20, then get a bonus afterwards.
> 
> (This also means you only need to work out CR -> EL once, and you don't have two separate values for the same character.)*




I thought of this initially myself but it makes the Spell Penetration feats and similar divine abilities much too powerful I think and they unbalance actually gaining Spell Resistance (from feats and deific abilities).



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I also think some comparson should be made based on the original SR - CR difference (using official MM figures).*




If the DM so wishes.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Some creatures have higher spell resistance then others, relative to their CR, and this should be preserved.
> A Drider, for example, has CR7 and SR14 - so the opponents it faces will generally get through,  but the occasional spell won't.
> A Pit Fiend has CR16 and SR28, so 16th level casters need 12+ to get through - a tougher proposition.*




It would be easy to instigate weak-regular-tough spell resistance by simply making:

weak = 1/2 CR
regular = CR
tough = CR x2



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *So, if the Drider worked out as having CR7 and therefore EL 12, it's SR would be 19.
> The Pit Fiend, with CR27 --> EL 19 would have SR of 31 (that +12 bonus).
> 
> The Feats, Spell penetration, etc, have a larger effect in this system, so perhaps should provide only have the bonus (+1 for basic Spell Penetration.
> ...




I would be willing perhaps to accept the 'use current SR as CR' idea but not necessarily that the Spell Penetration feat (etc.) should work solely on EL. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Also, that Drider.
> A CR7 Drider would be EL12. The 20th level wizard would actually fail to penetrate on 3 or less.
> Under my suggestion, it's SR of 19 only allows a fail on a 1, as it would be under the normal rules.*




Personally I see a little risk with Spell Penetration being a good thing, even when the caster is higher level.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I'm not over-keen on the "base 11" mechanic: it's extra arithmetic, and it's not intuitive. I think the 3e version of a set number that you roll and add another number to beat is easier. *




DC = 10* + Encounter Level Difference then

*or 11.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 2, 2003)

Upper_Krust



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *As I suggested... *



Cheeky bugger. You actually suggested it was more consistent to *include* darkvision in the equation a few pages back. No matter, I forgive you.



At any rate, if you're looking into it, that's wonderful. I would be more inclined to calculate *Encounter Level by Number of Opponents* (Table 1–2) using the chart for *Party Encounter Level by Character Numbers* (Table 1–3); rather than the other way around.

It already makes sense. You have created a system where PCs are clearly rated with higher Challenge Ratings than NPCs, and yet NPC numbers give them twice as many CR bonuses than characters. This makes no sense.

Using the numbers from Table 1–2 and Table 1–3, you have calculated 23 player characters to be less effective than 23 opponents by a factor of one-half! If anything, the characters would be more effective -- and they would be -- if both the opponents and players used the same chart (seeing as how PCs are unilaterally rated at a higher CR than NPCs).

If you calculate their *numbers* the same way, this problem is instantly solved.

*

As for the big release, make version 5 the final sale. You'll thank the extra feedback in end (before going big-time-Hollywood-public). I want your CR system to take over when the time comes, but it's not time for you to lock the laboratory door just yet (as all the feedback you're getting now will attest).

-----

demiurgeastaroth.

It looks like you came up with the correct XP values all by yourself.





			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Can you post what CR's these hobgoblins have, including fractions?*



Sure thing. I should have made this clear earlier. The challenge ratings are identical to the values I listed earlier in that post. Namely...

A 1st level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR ½.
A 2nd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 1.
A 3rd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 2.

As I understand the process, adding CR +4 to CR ½ would equal CR 4. By extension, adding CR +4 to CR ¼ would equal CR 3.

Anybody disagree with this assessment?


----------



## Anubis (May 2, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Don't give him any ideas!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Actually this CAN make perfect sense.  Just because increases are the same does NOT mean that XP awards will go up or down at the same rate.

If you assume the following:

You see, at Level 1, the party is weak and is PEL 1.  The hobgoblins are FAR more powerful at this level, and are correctly rated at EL 4.

At Level 2, however, the party is far more powerful and gains much more than the hobgoblins do thus far, being PEL 5 now.  The hobgoblins barely gained any power, because their increase was small, and they are now EL 5.

At Level 3, the party gets the smaller boost in power and becomes PEL 7.  The hobgoblins get a bigger power boost this time around and once again overtake the party in terms of power, becoming EL 9.

Then it makes sense.  It COULD be argued that this is indeed true.  Then again, there are those who would argue that it is not the case.  There is another solution.  Factor in the Darkvision.

Now you get PEL 1 against EL 5, PEL 5 against EL 9, and PEL 3 against EL 9.  This assumes that both the PCs AND the monsters get their biggest boosts at Level 2 and not much for Level 3.  I would almost rather do it this way.  You are seriously underestimating the hobgoblins.

In my campaign recently, a party of three Level 2 characters (PEL 4) took on two hobgoblins and four goblins (EL 5).  The party damn near got wiped out.  In fact, they needed reinforcements from a fourth Level 2 character to survive.  These were NORMAL hobgoblins and goblins to boot.  If you don't get as much success, you simply must not be using them correctly.  These thigns are NOT stupid.  They're not geniuses, but they're not stupid.  They have moderate tactics at the very least and should make full use of what they have, especially their one-shot ranged attacks.

By the way, I now know why you calculate EL only in whole numbers and never in fractions.  Some enemies aren't counted in XP if you don't!  Anyway, CR 1/2 is EL 0, whatever.  UK, I ask you now . . . If for all purposes these fractional CRs are turned back into whole numbers for EL purposes, why assign any fractional CR in the first place?  There's no point to it!  That CR means pretty much nothing!  Well except for maybe treasure, but that's a minor point only.


----------



## Anubis (May 2, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> At any rate, if you're looking into it, that's wonderful. I would be more inclined to calculate Encounter Level by Number of Opponents (Table 1–2) using the chart for Party Encounter Level by Character Numbers (Table 1–3); rather than the other way around.
> 
> It already makes sense. You have created a system where PCs are clearly rated with higher Challenge Ratings than NPCs, and yet NPC numbers give them twice as many CR bonuses than characters. This makes no sense.
> *




Yes it does make sense.  You're overlooking the single most important issue in the system.  The PCs are the basis for the calculations.  Is PEL = EL, that constitutes a 20% challenge for the PCs.  Doing what you suggest, numbers now take a big hit to the EL and actually skews everything.

By your claims, a party of four Human Level 1 Fighters with PC wealth would be EL 1 rather than EL 5 as it currently stands.  You know what the problem with that is?  That party would be an EVEN CHALLENGE for the PCs, one they would have only a 50/50 chance of winning.  I'm sorry, but this is clearly wrong.  When EL and PEL are the same, that represents a minor 20% challenge, not a 50/50 encounter.  That is precisely why the numbers are calculated different for PCs and monsters.  Remember, PEL is NOT *actual* EL, it's the "actual EL minus 4" (for PC parties of four).  That is the key.

UK, I know you're looking into this, I only hope this reminds you why you made it that way to begin with!



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Using the numbers from Table 1–2 and Table 1–3, you have calculated 23 player characters to be less effective than 23 opponents by a factor of one-half! If anything, the characters would be more effective -- and they would be -- if both the opponents and players used the same chart (seeing as how PCs are unilaterally rated at a higher CR than NPCs).
> *




Wrong.  It calculates them the exact same way.  You just subtract some when petermining the PEL, which is used to determine a 20% challenge, not an even encounter.  Remember there IS a difference between actual EL and PEL.  PEL is a tool to determine a specific level of challenge and XP awards, NOT to determine relative power ratings.  For that, use the full EL.

This is why it was designed like that in the first place, remember?!


----------



## Anubis (May 2, 2003)

*Re: Optional Spell Resistance*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> A number of people have commented that Spell resistance should be tied to Encounter Levels rather than Challenge Ratings (or Hit Dice I suppose).
> 
> ...




I hope I'm not being too blunt when I say *this idea sucks.* 

The ONLY way to fix SR to be meaningful is with my original idea of using EL to figure out SR, as caster level for penetration, and for all other such things.

Simply put, do it as follows:

Find out the difference between the SRs as-is and the current CR ratings from the books.  For example, a Lemure has SR 5 and is CR 1.  This is a +4 difference.

Then you figure out the new CR and EL by the UK system.  By the new system, a Lemure is CR 2 and EL 5.

Now you take the difference between the original SR and CR and add it to the new EL from UK's system.  For the Lemure, this means 5+4, or SR 9.

For CR purposes, and this is a minor thing that already has to be done with creatures that create spawn anyway, find the difference between the new SR and the old SR.  For the Lemure, that would be 9-5, or 4.  Now add that value of the extra SR into the CR value of the creature.  For hte Lemure, this would be 2.75 + 0.4, giving us a final CR of 3.15 for the creature.  If this increases CR/EL, adjust things.  CR 3 means EL 7, and that means 7+4 gives the Lemure SR 11 at this point.  Repeat this step until CR/EL does not increase.  Most of the time, there will be no increase, and for most epic monsters, the CR/EL will DECREASE!  For the Lemure, we have an extra 2 SR, so 3.15 + 0.2 gives us 3.35, a final CR rating that is no bigger or smaller than the previous.  Done.  _This final step, however, may be pedantic and needless, and thus it should be optional.  There actually is no need to recalculate anything because a good enough calculation has already been made using the original SR._

Now when PCs go up against the creature, take the new SR.  For the Lemure, we'll skip the final step and say it has SR 9 for this test.  Spell penetration is done using *actual* EL numbers (NOT PEL).  Against the Lemure, a Level 1 spellcaster PC (EL 1) would need an 8, a Level 2 spellcaster PC (EL 5) would need a 4, a Level 3 spellcaster PC (EL 7) would need a 2, and any spellcaster of a higher level than that would penetrate on a 2 as well.  This works at ALL levels.

Anyway, with that, and even without the final recalculation step, the SR problem is 100% fixed.  Even the feats and stuff make sense again!  Not only that, but despite the lengthy explanation, it is a piece of cake to determine the new SR ratings, especially if you skip that last step.  (Other testers and UK can check to see if that step is actually needed or not.  I don't think it is necessary, to be honest, but I posted it just in case someone wanted to see it.)  Anyway, problem solved.  SR remains useful at all levels, the numbers never get too high or low, and everything works out perfect!


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 3, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *demiurgeastaroth.
> 
> It looks like you came up with the correct XP values all by yourself.
> 
> ...




Hmm, so I did  

*



			As I understand the process, adding CR +4 to CR ½ would equal CR 4. By extension, adding CR +4 to CR ¼ would equal CR 3.

Anybody disagree with this assessment?
		
Click to expand...


*
It does look that way. It seems like retaining the fractional values is a bad idea - it only causes confusion.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 3, 2003)

*Pseudo-deity Package*

Hey, U_K, what's the CR mod for the rank 0/1 deity abilities?


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 3, 2003)

*Playtesting*

I'm going to be playtesting the CR system over the next monthy or two, so if there are any current alterations to CR calculations not listed in version 3 of the file, could you post them?
Is there going to be a version 4?

One of the main reasons I'm testing it is that I use a LOT of advanced creatures, templates, and creatures with class levels, and I think the official method of calculating these things is really poor.

I've gone over my group's encounters for the last adventure, and I find that if I had use UK's system, I would have given around 27,000XP each rather than 9,000 (they are 24th level). This difference worries me...
I think I'm a pretty good judge of what my group can handle, and the only encounter that I felt the players deserved more XP for was the tarrasque (about 400xp in the standard system, compared to around 7,000 in UK's). The tarrasque was probably worth around half the UK value (it did consume more than 20% resources, but never seriously threatened them - an EL+2 encounter seems about right).

I find that if I halve the XP values generated by UK's system, this feels about right. I'm not sure whether that's true at all levels, or is something that only occurs at certain levels. It might point to a fundamental problem with the system, or it might just be that my group is powerful for it's EL. I don't know, but that's the one change I'll be making to the system for playtesting purposes.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 3, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *When EL and PEL are the same, that represents a minor 20% challenge, not a 50/50 encounter.  That is precisely why the numbers are calculated different for PCs and monsters.  Remember, PEL is NOT *actual* EL, it's the "actual EL minus 4" (for PC parties of four).  That is the key.*



Funny. You didn't actually say anything here, except to regurgitate how the system currently works ... without seemingly understanding why (hence your inability to objectively question it). No matter. Let's see if I can clear it up.

First of all, a party of four 1st level characters are CR 1 and EL 1.
A party of four 1st level NPCs would be CR 0 and (presumably) EL 0.

The NPCs would represent an easy challenge to the player characters. Not a moderate challenge at all.

Because the player characters are already inherently more powerful than the NPCs, why would NPCs receive a greater CR bonus for the same number of opponents?

If you can address that point about Upper_Krust's CR system (you know, the actual issue I brought up) perhaps you will move a step closer towards objectively questioning it.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 3, 2003)

*Stumped*

Hey U_K, when you post the CR modifier of a pseudo deity  , could you be so kind as to also post the cost of the lernean feature of hydras. I'm stumped (pun intended) with regards working out the CR of a 10 headed, lernean cryohydra.


Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 3, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Cheeky bugger. You actually suggested it was more consistent to *include* darkvision in the equation a few pages back. No matter, I forgive you.*








			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *At any rate, if you're looking into it, that's wonderful. I would be more inclined to calculate Encounter Level by Number of Opponents (Table 1–2) using the chart for Party Encounter Level by Character Numbers (Table 1–3); rather than the other way around.*




Possibly.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *It already makes sense. You have created a system where PCs are clearly rated with higher Challenge Ratings than NPCs, and yet NPC numbers give them twice as many CR bonuses than characters. This makes no sense.
> 
> Using the numbers from Table 1–2 and Table 1–3, you have calculated 23 player characters to be less effective than 23 opponents by a factor of one-half! If anything, the characters would be more effective -- and they would be -- if both the opponents and players used the same chart (seeing as how PCs are unilaterally rated at a higher CR than NPCs).
> 
> If you calculate their *numbers* the same way, this problem is instantly solved.*




But you don't use PEL for NPCs - I don't understand your above notions; in fact I think you have picked something up wrong...?

A party of four 20th-level (player) characters are PEL 18
But the same party of four 20th-level characters (with PC equipment) encountered by another PC party will be EL 22 (18 + 4)



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *As for the big release, make version 5 the final sale. You'll thank the extra feedback in end (before going big-time-Hollywood-public). I want your CR system to take over when the time comes, but it's not time for you to lock the laboratory door just yet (as all the feedback you're getting now will attest). *


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Optional Spell Resistance*

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I hope I'm not being too blunt when I say this idea sucks.*




You...blunt...never.  



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The ONLY way to fix SR to be meaningful is with my original idea of using EL to figure out SR, as caster level for penetration, and for all other such things.
> 
> Simply put, do it as follows:
> 
> ...




It could just be the way I am reading it but I think your idea is a bit too complicated to be at all practical.

...maybe thats just me though!? 

What does anyone else think?


----------



## Ashardalon (May 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Optional Spell Resistance*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *...maybe thats just me though!?
> *




For the record... it is not just you.


As far as a half-fiendish great red wyrm can count in the battle of gods.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 3, 2003)

*Re: Pseudo-deity Package*

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Hey, U_K, what's the CR mod for the rank 0/1 deity abilities? *




Not sure I fully understand the question? Do you mean the template for divinity or the individual deific abilities (salient divine abilities).

I don't technically use Divine Rank in the Immortals Handbook.

I have the Quasi-deity (in my book) rated as a +20 CR template.

The deific abilities each rate approx. +1 CR.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 3, 2003)

*Re: Playtesting*

Hello again mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I'm going to be playtesting the CR system over the next monthy or two, so if there are any current alterations to CR calculations not listed in version 3 of the file, could you post them?*




I'll have a look later, not sure if I can remember them all...?



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Is there going to be a version 4?*




At the moment I am not planning one - but I wouldn't rule it out.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *One of the main reasons I'm testing it is that I use a LOT of advanced creatures, templates, and creatures with class levels, and I think the official method of calculating these things is really poor.*




Indeed.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I've gone over my group's encounters for the last adventure, and I find that if I had use UK's system, I would have given around 27,000XP each rather than 9,000 (they are 24th level). This difference worries me...*




Mmmm...interesting.

What did they encounter?



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I think I'm a pretty good judge of what my group can handle, and the only encounter that I felt the players deserved more XP for was the tarrasque (about 400xp in the standard system, compared to around 7,000 in UK's). The tarrasque was probably worth around half the UK value (it did consume more than 20% resources, but never seriously threatened them - an EL+2 encounter seems about right).*




How did they beat the Tarrasque ~ there may have been a situational modifier in there...remember the Tarrasque has no ranged attacks, so if the PCs took it down at range I would apply a -2 EL mod. Also I take it they didn't use the old _Harm_ or _Heal_ spells.

Remember also that they would have had to expend 5000 XP to finish him off as well.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I find that if I halve the XP values generated by UK's system, this feels about right. I'm not sure whether that's true at all levels, or is something that only occurs at certain levels. It might point to a fundamental problem with the system, or it might just be that my group is powerful for it's EL. I don't know, but that's the one change I'll be making to the system for playtesting purposes. *




Does the party have wealth within the current parameters?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 3, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> Actually this CAN make perfect sense.  Just because increases are the same does NOT mean that XP awards will go up or down at the same rate.



Here you miss the point originally by also embracing the current system.

When you take four 1st-level player characters and four 1st level non-player characters, the player characters already have an advantage. This is reflected in their Challenge Ratings.

The party of four 1st-level player characters is CR 1.
The party of four 1st-level non-player characters is CR 0.

Now advance two levels.

The party of four 2nd-level player characters is CR 2.
The party of four 2nd-level non-player characters is CR 1.

The party of four 3rd-level player characters is CR 3
The party of four 3rd-level non-player characters is CR 2.

In every one of these examples, there should be a mathematical certainty that the player characters earn less (base) XP each time (before being multiplied by average level).

But that's not how it works.

Instead (using the current system) the XP breaks down like this...

Level 1 (225 XP) --> Level 2 (150 XP) --> Level 3 (450 XP.)

The base XP in each case (before being multiplied by average character level and divided by 4) is 900 XP --> 300 XP --> 600 XP.

This breaks what should be a mathematical constant of steadily decreasing XP rewards.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 3, 2003)

Upper_Krust.

demiurgeastaroth makes a good point about inflated XP. Too much XP is being doled out for both piddly lower-level and epic higher-level encounters.

I think the problem starts in EL jump. 1 to 5 between CR 1 and 2 is too much, no matter how sacrosanct you consider your equations for reaching those values.

I noticed you just posted a reply to me. In that post you say...

_A party of four 20th-level (player) characters are PEL 18
But the same party of four 20th-level characters (with PC equipment) encountered by another PC party will be EL 22 (18 + 4)._

Okaaaaaay ... I know how your system works, so restating it doesn't solve the problem. The NPCs should not receive more CR bonuses for their numbers than the characters. The above encounter should be a 50/50 challenge. 

But once again, just like Anubis did, you conveniently gave the NPCs player characters wealth. This does not serve the majority of situations, where the NPCs will have NPC wealth, right?



So the NPCs in your example would more commonly rate CR 18/EL 17.

This seems about right. They are a weaker challenge and would only award 1000 XP to each party member (Base 200 x 20 / 4).

But your current system goes on to beef up the NPCs with +4 EL for their numbers (a bonus that the PCs, for reasons unexplained, do not enjoy).

By your system, the PCs would receive 4500 X for each party member (Base 900 x 20 / 4).

I think you know why demiurgeastaroth has identified an inflated XP problem with your CR system. Now you just have to see it and hopefully become a part of, if not spearhead, the solution.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 3, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Funny. You didn't actually say anything here, except to regurgitate how the system currently works ... without seemingly understanding why (hence your inability to objectively question it). No matter. Let's see if I can clear it up.*




I think I see a flaw in your reasoning...



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *First of all, a party of four 1st level characters are CR 1 and EL 1.*




Actually EL 5 (PEL 1)



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *A party of four 1st level NPCs would be CR 0 and (presumably) EL 0.*




Actually EL 4.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *The NPCs would represent an easy challenge to the player characters. Not a moderate challenge at all.*




I would have said they represent a difficult challenge since they practically match the PCs, its almost a 50/50 encounter.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Because the player characters are already inherently more powerful than the NPCs, why would NPCs receive a greater CR bonus for the same number of opponents?*




They don't. You don't substitute PEL for EL when creating an encounter.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Optional Spell Resistance*

Hi Ashardalon mate! 



			
				Ashardalon said:
			
		

> *For the record... it is not just you.
> 
> As far as a half-fiendish great red wyrm can count in the battle of gods.  *




Appreciate the confirmation my draconian friend - normally I wouldn't ask but I have a bit of a headache at the moment and I could simply be reading it wrong.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Playtesting*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> How did they beat the Tarrasque ~ there may have been a situational modifier in there...remember the Tarrasque has no ranged attacks, so if the PCs took it down at range I would apply a -2 EL mod. Also I take it they didn't use the old _Harm_ or _Heal_ spells.



I'm sorry, but you do this repeatedly. Every time somebody presents evidence that your CR system might need fixing, your try to invalidate it by questing their dungeon mastering. You have got to realize that not everybody is going to dungeon master their campaigns the same way you do, and so your CR system has to take that into account. Not with situational modifiers, but with concrete modifiers. That's the whole point remember? You want to avoid situational modifiers as much as possible. Otherwise your system will be doomed to make all the same mistakes that WotC has made.

People are already asking you to rate all the monsters in the manuals for them. Ego-boosting as this might be, you have taken the place of WotC when it comes to handing down "official" CR values. I thought your system was supposed to empower people with the tools to make those concrete calculations themselves.

Rather than doing the work for us, how about making the system work seamlessly so we can do the work for ourselves?


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 3, 2003)

To sonofapreacherman (mainly).

Okay I have a bit of a headache at the moment but I think the EXP solution has just clicked.

Instead of using the EL difference of the encounter to determine EXP, instead use the EL difference for each individual creature.

I'm guessing someone has likely mentioned this before, I must have missed the 'gist' of it initially.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 3, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *To sonofapreacherman (mainly).
> 
> Okay I have a bit of a headache at the moment but I think the EXP solution has just clicked.
> 
> ...



I'll be honest, I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you play it out with an example, complete with behind the scenes calculations?


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Playtesting*

Hello again mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I'm sorry, but you do this repeatedly. Every time somebody presents evidence that your CR system might need fixing, your try to invalidate it by questing their dungeon mastering.*




I think I am within my rights asking for some encounter details. I'm not questioning anyones dungeonmastering, but DMing styles can vary and this is something that can palpably affect CRs/ELs.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *You have got to realize that not everybody is going to dungeon master their campaigns the same way you do, and so your CR system has to take that into account. Not with situational modifiers, but with concrete modifiers. That's the whole point remember? You want to avoid situational modifiers as much as possible. Otherwise your system will be doomed to make all the same mistakes that WotC has made.*




Of course, but you still have to acknowledge that situational modifiers exist.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *People are already asking you to rate all the monsters in the manuals for them. Ego-boosting as this might be, you have taken the place of WotC when it comes to handing down "official" CR values. I thought your system was supposed to empower people with the tools to make those concrete calculations themselves.*




Whats stopping them? If people ask me for this or that CR I don't mind helping them out; but I am not really giving them something they couldn't already do themselves using my system.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Rather than doing the work for us, how about making the system work seamlessly so we can do the work for ourselves?  *




Whether I determine a CR or someone else uses my system to determine one they should arrive at the same results, frankly I don't see what your problem is here.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 3, 2003)

Hello mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I'll be honest, I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you play it out with an example, complete with behind the scenes calculations? *




Okay, lets see.

Party of four 1st-level characters = PEL 1

vs.

Group of four hobgoblins CR 1/2  = EL 4 (0 + 4)

PEL 1 vs. EL 4 (difference 3: almost 50/50, quite difficult)

EXP awarded (use individual hobgoblins x 4).

PEL 1 vs. EL 0 (individual Hobgoblin) = PC Level x 200 (EL -1 difference).

Total EXP = 800 (200 per Hobgoblin).

EXP per PC = 200


----------



## seasong (May 3, 2003)

Situational modifiers: There is an incredibly beautiful ("My God, it's full of stars!") way to handle situational modifiers. It won't work for absolutely every situation, and it takes some work, but... here are the generic situational modifiers:

If the monster can not retaliate in any way: No XP. No exceptions. Doesn't matter how tough the monster is, if there is no chance of retaliation, there is no risk, and hence, no XP.

Note: a situation where the PCs can not retaliate in any form or fashion at all should not give XP (they couldn't do anything), but also should be used only sparingly, if at all, in a D&D campaign.

If the situation nullifies one of the monster's abilities: Drop that ability from the monster's CR. This is the lightning strike I just had. If the situation nullifies the party's abilities, same thing in reverse.

If the situation enhances on of the monster's abilities: Use the enhanced ability as the CR. Ditto the party.

These can be combined. If the monster can retaliate, but only in some piddly way, rebuild the monster as if it was a piddly attacker with its full defenses. That is, Upper Krust's system lets you figure out the CR of a 50 HD creature that only has a 1d4 ranged fire damage attack, so work it out!

PCs get a surprise round: CR minus 1/4th the party's level. This is designed to scale with how much damage the party can dish out by the round, and assumes that in an ideal situation, the party can kill another party in an average of 4 rounds.

Monsters get a surprise round: CR plus 1/4th the monster's CR. See above.

Most situational modifiers can be put in as fractions of the 1/4th level factor. For example, if a ranged party is attacking a foe who is far away and has no ranged attacks (no ability to fight back), subtract 1/4th the party's level per round it will take him to reach the party.

Note: Most of these can be handled somewhat on the fly. If the dragon is in a narrow space, look up his flight in Upper Krust's system, and subtract that from his CR. Simple, see?

Anyway, I'm sure there are holes. This is the lightning strike, not the refined product . But I think it might be a good start to some well defined situational modifiers.


----------



## Anubis (May 4, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Funny. You didn't actually say anything here, except to regurgitate how the system currently works ... without seemingly understanding why (hence your inability to objectively question it). No matter. Let's see if I can clear it up.
> *




Actually I answered your questions, you simply didn't comprehend the answers.  The fact is that it ALREADY works as it stands.  There is no problem.  It's in your head, or rather your lack of understanding the implications of the EL/PEL relationship.  A party of Level 1 PCs is NOT EL 1 but rather *PEL* 1, but are still EL 5.

To elaborate, *EL* is the estimation of power.  *PEL* is the number representing the EL that would be a 20% encounter.  If two encounters of the same EL match up, that's a 50/50 encounter.  Therefore a new number is needed to determine the party's XP, which is based off challenges that are 20% encounters and not 50/50 encounters.  Since EL +4 is a 50/50, that means *PEL* should be actual EL -4, as stated in the system rules.

This goes for multiple opponents as well all the way.  PEL is always EL -4.  That is so the DM can judge the 20% encounter and give proper XP.  UK also explains this a bit further down.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

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




Perhaps my explanation was too complex.  Simply put, it's simpler than any other solution so far given.  Lemme say it again in simpler terms.

Step 1: Find the difference between the WotC SR and the WotC CR.  (e.g. Lemure, SR 5, CR 1, Difference +4)

Step 2: Calculate UK CR and EL.  (e.g. Lemure, UK CR 2.75; CR 2, EL 5)

Step 3: Add difference between WotC SR and WotC CR to UK EL to determine new UK SR.  (e.g. Lemure, Difference +4, EL 5; NEW SR 9)

*Optional* Step 4: Determine value of new SR and repeat Steps 1-3 until final whole CR does not increase.  (e.g. Lemure, UK CR +0.4, CR 3.15; CR 3, EL 7; EL +2, SR 11; UK CR +0.2, CR 3.35, Final Result)  _I repeat, this is optional and probably unnecessary.  For simplicity's sake, only follow Steps 1-3.  Step 4 is for experimental purposes only._

Then simply use EL as caster level when rolling for spell penetration.  A Level 20 PC Wizard is EL 18, so spell penetration is 1d20+18.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Here you miss the point originally by also embracing the current system.
> 
> When you take four 1st-level player characters and four 1st level non-player characters, the player characters already have an advantage. This is reflected in their Challenge Ratings.
> ...




Um, no.  You see, the ONLY certainty is that the value of the SAME CR/EL will go down as *PEL* goes up.  You're increasing BOTH.  Since the increases are not the same, of course you will get results that appear to be "off".

The reason this happens is is because the PCs get the "bigger" power increase from Levels 1-2, and the monsters get the "bigger" power increase from Levels 2-3.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

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




Thanks for clearing that up, UK.  That's what I was trying to say.  You just said it better, heh.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> To sonofapreacherman (mainly).
> 
> Okay I have a bit of a headache at the moment but I think the EXP solution has just clicked.
> ...




*Raises Hand*

That would be me.  Remember on MSN when I said that you went from giving XP per monster to XP per group and I said I didn't like the results?  This is what I meant.  I dropped it because in the end, I understood your reasoning and felt that you were right to judge by group.

As much as I would enjoy you reversing, I'm going to now defend your original position.  Hehehe.

You see, giving XP per monster ignores the challenge posed by multiple creatures.  Consider the following two examples.  In example 1, the party faces a goblin in combat, then later faces another single goblin in combat, and then later faces a third lone goblin in combat.  In example 2, the party faces 3 goblins at the same time.  Think about it.  If you give XP per creature, both situations will give the PCs (assuming a party of four) 150 XP each.  If you give XP per encounter, however, the battle against the three goblins at once will instead give the PCs 225 XP each.

Now to say that XP should be given per creature invalidates the FACT that the single battle against three goblins at once IS IN FACT more difficult than three different encounters against lone goblins.  See what I'm saying?  This is why I reversed my position on the EL issue and also why you should not reverse yours, UK.  I think you know this and are just letting some misinformation get to you at this point.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *
> Situational modifiers: There is an incredibly beautiful ("My God, it's full of stars!") way to handle situational modifiers. It won't work for absolutely every situation, and it takes some work, but... here are the generic situational modifiers:
> 
> If the monster can not retaliate in any way: No XP. No exceptions. Doesn't matter how tough the monster is, if there is no chance of retaliation, there is no risk, and hence, no XP.
> ...




This requires A LOT of math, but I like it anyway!  I think this could be the best solution.  In this case, though, UK should release the official numbers for all creatures (the actual CR numbers and not the final whole CR numbers).


----------



## Eldorian (May 4, 2003)

Hey all.

Was just reading seasong's list of situational modifiers, and I have to disagree that a monster with no way of retaliating is worth no exp.  It is an obstical that requires resources.  Like a locked door, except it's a locked door that requires 20% of your resources.  I give exp for puzzles and other obsticles even if they pose no physical threat to the PCs.  Even tho the monster WOULD pose a threat if the PCs fought it on the ground, lets say.  What you are doing is encouraging PCs to fight dumb, cause fighting dumb would earn them exp, whereas fighting smart would lose them exp.  I say that any ability the PCs negate from the monster in question should still be worth EXP.  Afterall, the PCs did gain experience from the fight, ie, learning how to negate ability X from monster Y.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 4, 2003)

Anubis.

Your replies consist of quoting the rules verbatim. Rules that I think everybody are acquainted with at this point (including myself, who took the longest to understand them). You're not saying anything new, nor do your replies constitute any kind of argument.

-----

Upper_Krust.

More math for you. By calculating XP for individual monsters, rather than groups of monsters, sometimes you get less XP, sometimes you get more.

When you get these XP discrepancies, it is usually around a factor of 0.1 or 0.1R%. As in the differences between 200 and 225.

For example, in the more XP category, let's say instead of sending 4 hobgoblins at 0 CR against a party of 1st level PCs, you send 5 hobgoblins instead. The EL does not change at all, but now each characters nets 250 XP each.

Ultimately the difference is negligible, and certainly not enough to diminish the exaggerated XP totals your CR system churns out right now. In fact, it increases them in many cases. So whether you use "group" or "individual" XP for PC opponents, the problem of inflated XP does not go away.

I'm not sure how right now, but I'm certain your solution can be found through calculating EL bonuses for "numbers" the same way for both PCs *and* their opponents. To make this possible, however, I'm pretty sure the CR to EL values you consider sacrosanct will have to change.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Pseudo-deity Package*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

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




It was the template for divinity I was interested in, thanks. It is the same as the abilities gained by a Rank 0 deity in Deities & Demigods?


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

seasong said:
			
		

> *Situational modifiers: There is an incredibly beautiful ("My God, it's full of stars!") way to handle situational modifiers. It won't work for absolutely every situation, and it takes some work, but... here are the generic situational modifiers:
> 
> If the monster can not retaliate in any way: No XP. No exceptions. Doesn't matter how tough the monster is, if there is no chance of retaliation, there is no risk, and hence, no XP.
> *




It depends. If it's an isolated incident, a random encounter that just happens to be one in which the pcs are immune to harm,  then I'd agree.
But if it's an encounter where the PCs knew what they were getting into, and set up the situation so that the creature couldn't fight back, they should get some experience.
Also, if it's one encounter in a day of enconters, even if the players couldn't be harmed they may use resources and may be weaker for those later encounters: since those later encounters are now harder, giving XP for the first encounter does simulate the greater challenge.
And finally, the thing they face mght be an important objective: it might not be abel to harm them, but in defeating it they do accomplish something (maybe it's guarding a mountain pass and the king needs to send a messenger through it, for example). There are campaign effects, so XP is justified.

*



			If the situation nullifies one of the monster's abilities: Drop that ability from the monster's CR. This is the lightning strike I just had. If the situation nullifies the party's abilities, same thing in reverse.

If the situation enhances on of the monster's abilities: Use the enhanced ability as the CR. Ditto the party.
		
Click to expand...


*
This *is* a neat idea. However, I will stick to assigning ad-hoc modifiers ("extra 10% XP" or whatever) because I don't have to go back to the design system when it's done. 
Also, the adding/dropping modifiers is in a sense arbitrary, since you can only make modifiers of +50%, +100%, +150%, +200%, -25%, -50%, etc - nothing smaller or in-between.
A creature with a CR of 30 that can't get use a CR2 ability would not be affected at all, but a creature if CR29 would lose 25% of its XP value. This isn't right.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Playtesting*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hello again mate!
> Mmmm...interesting.
> 
> What did they encounter?
> *




I'll give a few examples Tuesday - no time to look through notes today, and the session is tomorrow

*



			How did they beat the Tarrasque ~ there may have been a situational modifier in there...remember the Tarrasque has no ranged attacks, so if the PCs took it down at range I would apply a -2 EL mod. Also I take it they didn't use the old Harm or Heal spells.

Remember also that they would have had to expend 5000 XP to finish him off as well.
		
Click to expand...


*
Nope, no use of harm, and the spellcasters providely basically indirect aid. Turning the ground to mud in an attempt to collaopse the tunnel it was making to escape, that kind of thing.
The Monk and the Fighter, using spring attack did most of it. Then the fighter went in toe-to-toe, and his close quarters fighting feat acually stopped him getting grabbed once. When he did get swallowed, a bracelet of friends was used to bring him out, and he charged back in again - it would have only taken another round without that 

The tarrasque has a really poor AC (compared to other creatures encountered by CR24 creatures), and it was very easy for the fighter to rack up damage - there was even one round where the monk managed to do about a 100 points (a couple of criticals countering the last couple of misses). There were rounds where they players were basically breaking even, just cancelling it's regeneration, and the fight did go on for soemwhere in the 10-20 round range, but the players where never in serious danger.

And my tarrasque was actually beefed up. Note the official tarrasque has no power attack. The damage dice of each of its attacks was doubled, and it got a substantial power attack bonus. 
Spellcasters did have some effect - not all of their spells are cancelled by the tarrasque's defences, though it's hard to get it to fail a save. 

*



			Does the party have wealth within the current parameters?
		
Click to expand...


*
The have roughly the wealth of a typical 24th level group (and sunk about 10-15% of it into inherent ability bonuses, because of which I'd been treating them as 25th level for XP and challenge purposes). 

That's more wealth than your document suggests: about the same as 26th level character, which wouldn't change ther PEL.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *To sonofapreacherman (mainly).
> 
> Okay I have a bit of a headache at the moment but I think the EXP solution has just clicked.
> 
> ...




I hadn't mentioned it, but this is in fact what I am doing.
In fact, this probably could lead to using three ratings.

1) Creature Level Equivalence (replace with some far better title with a useful acronym): what CR actually is in your system at the moment
2) CR: the UK_system EL of an individual creature.
3) EL: the encounter level of an actual encounter, determined exactly as in the DMG, using the above determined CR.


Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

*EL and PEL*

Hi Sonofapreacherman 

You are probably think that you're banging your head against a brick wall with your point about EL of monsters and EL of PCs. Let me see if I can explain where the misconception lies.

You stated:

A party of 4 1st level characters is EL 1.

This is not quite true...
If you face a single level 1 adventurer, his EL is 1. If you face 4 of them, you add +4 EL, so it's EL5.

If a player party of 1st level adventurers encountered that above group and fought them, it would be 1 50-50 encounter - the definition of a difficult (EL+4) encounter.
Note that UK and the DMG both regard a 50-50 encounter as an EL+4 encounter.

Since it is an EL+4 encounter, and the encounter is EL5, then the players must have an EL of 1. Because it's confusing to use EL in two different ways (once for opponents and one for PCs against which the opponens ar set), UK's system uses the term PEL.

So, any team or character has a PEL of 4 less than its EL. 

If that PC team of 4 level 1 characters encountered a single level 1 character, the opponent has an EL of 1, and the PCs have an EL of 5, and a PEL of 1.

When using EL v EL in straight comparison, you are declaring that equal numbers equal 50% chance of defeat.
If you use PEL v EL in straight comparison, the result is most likely a win for the players, with a 20% loss of resources. The standard challenge rating system from the DMG.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

*Heal and Harm*

I would replacing the Heal and Harm listed in the document with the new 3.5e versions, which appear to be: heal (or harm) 10 points per level to a maximum of 150.

They are about twice as effective, but otherwise clerics will find they need to memorise too many heal spells and are once more relegated to this role.
Also, as fixed effects, you can't use Empower, Maximise or Intensify on them, so it's not all good for the caster. But the important thing is maintaining as much compatibility with standard rules as possible.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Pseudo-deity Package*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *The deific abilities each rate approx. +1 CR. *




Ah, this bit if info allows me to calculate the CR of both versions of Tiamat 

Just need the value of the Lernean quality for hydras now. Come on, stop dawdling 

Darren


----------



## Anubis (May 4, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Anubis.
> 
> Your replies consist of quoting the rules verbatim. Rules that I think everybody are acquainted with at this point (including myself, who took the longest to understand them). You're not saying anything new, nor do your replies constitute any kind of argument.
> 
> ...




Um, the REASON you're not understanding are arguments is because your argument has NO BASIS.  The numbers ARE NOT INFLATED as you suggest.  By UK's system, you get the XP you deserve.  I have been testing the system for weeks now IN ACTUAL GAMEPLAY, and I have not seen ANY inflated XP awards.  My PCs reached Level 2 after 7 encounters, one of which was against a bugbear, two goblins, and four hobgoblins.  I might add that one PC died in that encounter and only one was still "up" after the battle because ti was so difficult.  This is not inflated, this is perfect.

Still need to work out kinks, but this is NOT one of those things.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> I have been testing the system for weeks now IN ACTUAL GAMEPLAY, and I have not seen ANY inflated XP awards.  My PCs reached Level 2 after 7 encounters,
> *




Sounds inflated to me. It's supposed to take around 14 standard encounters, regardless of level. Maybe your PCs are consistently facing tougher encounters than standard.

Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

Hiya seasong mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Situational modifiers: There is an incredibly beautiful ("My God, it's full of stars!") way to handle situational modifiers. It won't work for absolutely every situation, and it takes some work, but... here are the generic situational modifiers:
> 
> If the monster can not retaliate in any way: No XP. No exceptions. Doesn't matter how tough the monster is, if there is no chance of retaliation, there is no risk, and hence, no XP.
> 
> ...




Very, very interesting idea. I think this could be fleshed out to provide 'generic' situational modifiers (or somesuch) and there effect on EL.

Not totally sure the 'reducing CR' idea for unavailable options is viable though, seems a bit pedantic...

...I was thinking more along the lines of:

-1 EL if denied access to some abilities. 
-1 EL if PCs had time to prepare specifically for the encounter.
etc.

I am sure there are many others to think up.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Perhaps my explanation was too complex.*




Indeed.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Simply put, it's simpler than any other solution so far given.*




Except that so far only you have understood it. 

Only joking, as soon as I reread it again this morning (sans headache) I got it right away.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Lemme say it again in simpler terms.*




Okay.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Step 1: Find the difference between the WotC SR and the WotC CR.  (e.g. Lemure, SR 5, CR 1, Difference +4)
> 
> Step 2: Calculate UK CR and EL.  (e.g. Lemure, UK CR 2.75; CR 2, EL 5)
> 
> ...




So essentially this is exactly the same as my idea except we have to rework every monsters Spell Resistance first. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Thanks for clearing that up, UK.  That's what I was trying to say.  You just said it better, heh.*




Thats what I am here for dude! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> **Raises Hand*
> 
> That would be me.  Remember on MSN when I said that you went from giving XP per monster to XP per group and I said I didn't like the results?  This is what I meant.  I dropped it because in the end, I understood your reasoning and felt that you were right to judge by group.*




My short term memory is very poor but you are probably right - I could have sworn someone mentioned it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As much as I would enjoy you reversing, I'm going to now defend your original position.  Hehehe.
> 
> You see, giving XP per monster ignores the challenge posed by multiple creatures. *




I'm still looking into this, I haven't settled on anything yet.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Consider the following two examples.  In example 1, the party faces a goblin in combat, then later faces another single goblin in combat, and then later faces a third lone goblin in combat.  In example 2, the party faces 3 goblins at the same time.  Think about it.  If you give XP per creature, both situations will give the PCs (assuming a party of four) 150 XP each.  If you give XP per encounter, however, the battle against the three goblins at once will instead give the PCs 225 XP each.
> 
> Now to say that XP should be given per creature invalidates the FACT that the single battle against three goblins at once IS IN FACT more difficult than three different encounters against lone goblins.  See what I'm saying?  This is why I reversed my position on the EL issue and also why you should not reverse yours, UK.  I think you know this and are just letting some misinformation get to you at this point.*




Its plausible, I think some people may have been misusing the system - which is technically my fault because I should have made things clearer in the first place. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This requires A LOT of math, but I like it anyway!  I think this could be the best solution.  In this case, though, UK should release the official numbers for all creatures (the actual CR numbers and not the final whole CR numbers). *




Yeah I can just see it now - instead of simply including all the revised CRs from the Monster Manual I can breakdown every single monster point by point. It should only take another 100 pages!


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Hey all.*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Was just reading seasong's list of situational modifiers, and I have to disagree that a monster with no way of retaliating is worth no exp.  It is an obstical that requires resources.  Like a locked door, except it's a locked door that requires 20% of your resources.  I give exp for puzzles and other obsticles even if they pose no physical threat to the PCs.  Even tho the monster WOULD pose a threat if the PCs fought it on the ground, lets say.  What you are doing is encouraging PCs to fight dumb, cause fighting dumb would earn them exp, whereas fighting smart would lose them exp.  I say that any ability the PCs negate from the monster in question should still be worth EXP.  Afterall, the PCs did gain experience from the fight, ie, learning how to negate ability X from monster Y.*




Indeed, I think situational modifiers are more to do with circumstances rather than PCs using their powers.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *More math for you. By calculating XP for individual monsters, rather than groups of monsters, sometimes you get less XP, sometimes you get more.
> 
> When you get these XP discrepancies, it is usually around a factor of 0.1 or 0.1R%. As in the differences between 200 and 225.
> 
> ...




Indeed, upon reflection I don't consider it a viable solution (I did have a headache last night thats probably the reason for my meandering), in fact I am not sure if one is even necessary.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Pseudo-deity Package*

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *It was the template for divinity I was interested in, thanks. *




Okay then. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *It is the same as the abilities gained by a Rank 0 deity in Deities & Demigods? *




Its certainly not identical. Its 'similar' in many respects though, but probably fractionally better.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Playtesting*

Hello again mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I'll give a few examples Tuesday - no time to look through notes today, and the session is tomorrow*




Okay. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Nope, no use of harm, and the spellcasters providely basically indirect aid. Turning the ground to mud in an attempt to collaopse the tunnel it was making to escape, that kind of thing.
> The Monk and the Fighter, using spring attack did most of it. Then the fighter went in toe-to-toe, and his close quarters fighting feat acually stopped him getting grabbed once. When he did get swallowed, a bracelet of friends was used to bring him out, and he charged back in again - it would have only taken another round without that *








			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The tarrasque has a really poor AC (compared to other creatures encountered by CR24 creatures),*




True, it should have NA 42 (Half scaled/Half Carapace) 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *and it was very easy for the fighter to rack up damage - there was even one round where the monk managed to do about a 100 points (a couple of criticals countering the last couple of misses). There were rounds where they players were basically breaking even, just cancelling it's regeneration, and the fight did go on for soemwhere in the 10-20 round range, but the players where never in serious danger.*




They really weakened the Tarrasque when they removed its Sharpness bite.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *And my tarrasque was actually beefed up. Note the official tarrasque has no power attack. The damage dice of each of its attacks was doubled, and it got a substantial power attack bonus.
> Spellcasters did have some effect - not all of their spells are cancelled by the tarrasque's defences, though it's hard to get it to fail a save.*








			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The have roughly the wealth of a typical 24th level group (and sunk about 10-15% of it into inherent ability bonuses, because of which I'd been treating them as 25th level for XP and challenge purposes).
> 
> That's more wealth than your document suggests: about the same as 26th level character, which wouldn't change ther PEL.
> *




Indeed.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

*Re: Heal and Harm*

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I would replacing the Heal and Harm listed in the document with the new 3.5e versions, which appear to be: heal (or harm) 10 points per level to a maximum of 150.*




I dunno, it means Harm is still overpowered.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *They are about twice as effective, but otherwise clerics will find they need to memorise too many heal spells and are once more relegated to this role.*




Clerics don't need to memorise healing spells, they have that spontaneous casting thingamy - don't they...?



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Also, as fixed effects, you can't use Empower, Maximise or Intensify on them, so it's not all good for the caster. But the important thing is maintaining as much compatibility with standard rules as possible. *




Exactly, so they are actually less powerful at epic/immortals levels.

Well people can use either method.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Pseudo-deity Package*

Hello! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Ah, this bit if info allows me to calculate the CR of both versions of Tiamat *








			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Just need the value of the Lernean quality for hydras now. Come on, stop dawdling  *




Lernean: + 0.5/each possible extra two heads.

eg. 8 headed Lernean Hydra can have an extra 8 heads = CR +2

Remember also that Pyro/Cryo hydras gain the appropriate Fire/Cold subtypes.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Um, the REASON you're not understanding are arguments is because your argument has NO BASIS.  The numbers ARE NOT INFLATED as you suggest.  By UK's system, you get the XP you deserve.  I have been testing the system for weeks now IN ACTUAL GAMEPLAY, and I have not seen ANY inflated XP awards.  My PCs reached Level 2 after 7 encounters, one of which was against a bugbear, two goblins, and four hobgoblins.  I might add that one PC died in that encounter and only one was still "up" after the battle because ti was so difficult.  This is not inflated, this is perfect.
> 
> Still need to work out kinks, but this is NOT one of those things. *




Easy Tiger! Enough with the uppercase letter shouting OKAY.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Sounds inflated to me. It's supposed to take around 14 standard encounters, regardless of level. Maybe your PCs are consistently facing tougher encounters than standard.*




It takes 13.33 moderate encounters to level up, but Anubis didn't state all 7 were moderate encounters...?

The CR/EL system shows that low-level encounters that are even slightly higher CR are much more dangerous (and hence give greater rewards).


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Heal and Harm*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

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




You do get a save, so it will often only be half that amount.

*



			Clerics don't need to memorise healing spells, they have that spontaneous casting thingamy - don't they...?
		
Click to expand...


*
Clerics can only spontaneously cast spells with cure or inflict in their name. Heal and Harm can't be spontaneously cast.


*



			Exactly, so they are actually less powerful at epic/immortals levels.

Well people can use either method.
		
Click to expand...


*
At epic level, I think getting the 10/level is worthwhile: it's not as if it will make _that_ much difference 

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!
> It takes 13.33 moderate encounters to level up, but Anubis didn't state all 7 were moderate encounters...?
> 
> The CR/EL system shows that low-level encounters that are even slightly higher CR are much more dangerous (and hence give greater rewards). *




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.)


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Pseudo-deity Package*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Lernean: + 0.5/each possible extra two heads.
> 
> eg. 8 headed Lernean Hydra can have an extra 8 heads = CR +2
> ...




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.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Yeah I can just see it now - instead of simply including all the revised CRs from the Monster Manual I can breakdown every single monster point by point. It should only take another 100 pages!  *




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


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *My short term memory is very poor but you are probably right - I could have sworn someone mentioned it.
> *




<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?

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

*XP for single creature EL*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> <about calulating XP based on single creatures rather than groups>
> Indeed, upon reflection I don't consider it a viable solution (I did have a headache last night thats probably the reason for my meandering), in fact I am not sure if one is even necessary. *




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:
Base Unit: Red Dragon EL 24 (EL +/-0) = 100%
4 Pit Fiends EL 23 (EL -1) = +66.6%
4 Cornugons EL 22 (EL -2) = +50%
10 Barbazu EL 20 (EL -4) = +25%

What happens if they defeat the dragon, most of the demons, but then are forced to flee the last pit fiend and cornugon, gaining a partical victory. In the official system, it's easy - you just calculate XP for the defeated creatures. In your system you need to go through the rigmarole of working all the above out again.

Where the monsters are of equal EL, and found in pairs, groups or 3, 4, 6, 8, and so on, the XP for both methods is the same. But by using individual EL for XP, you can give the proper experience for trickier cases.

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 4, 2003)

*Re: Pseudo-deity Package*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!
> Its certainly not identical. Its 'similar' in many respects though, but probably fractionally better. *




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?


----------



## seasong (May 4, 2003)

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







> I say that any ability the PCs negate from the monster in question should still be worth EXP.  Afterall, the PCs did gain experience from the fight, ie, learning how to negate ability X from monster Y.



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?







			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Very, very interesting idea. I think this could be fleshed out to provide 'generic' situational modifiers (or somesuch) and there effect on EL.
> 
> Not totally sure the 'reducing CR' idea for unavailable options is viable though, seems a bit pedantic...



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 was thinking more along the lines of:



If it works well, I'm glad I could help .


----------



## Dinkeldog (May 4, 2003)

I'll start a continuation thread.


----------

