# Thoughts On The Challenge Rating System



## helium3 (May 21, 2005)

Have any other DM's come to the conclusion (as I have) that the CR's for monsters given in the various books are in many cases too high? I know that the DMG says that an encounter of the appropriate level for an average party that's adequately outfitted should consume about 20% of the daily resources of the party. While this may technically be true, I've also noticed that encounters like that are typically rather boring, in that even when I attempt to set the encounter up with flavor to heighten the drama, it still ends up being pretty boring because there is very little sense of risk. Perhaps I'm just a poor DM, but I rather think that the problem is the built in expectations of the gaming system. In essence, the system seems to assume that your players aren't going to know the game very well, and therefore aren't going to take advantage of the wide variety of strategic options available to them. I've pretty much had to start giving NPC's normal PC stats and select NPC's PC levels of equipment. I've had to advance monsters by a couple of hit-dice but not adjust the CR or put them up against monsters that are a couple of CR higher than normal. Also, I should point out that I didn't see this problem so much at lower levels, but I'm really starting to see it at higher levels. My party is at an average EL of around six and a half. Perhaps I'm just experiencing the breakdown that supposedly starts to occur at higher levels, but it seems a bit early for that.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Darmanicus (May 21, 2005)

More XP fer us baby!


----------



## Crothian (May 21, 2005)

CR is an estimate.  No two parties are crated equal.  If you use point buy or dice rolling methods that generate higher then average stats, the CR system will become a little less accurate.  If the characters min max a lot, the same will happen.  THe trick is to know your party and tyo be abble to tell if they are powerful enough above the norm to casue you to start reducing CRs by a bit.


----------



## the Jester (May 21, 2005)

It really varies.  My epic group had a helluva lotta trouble with 2 spiffed up CR 23 lurker aboves over the last few games, and the party is large and in charge.


----------



## styker (May 21, 2005)

The rules about CR are strange... for example: the rule says that a fighter 20 is a CR 20, and the tarrasque is a CR 20 too, so... you gains the same xp for the fighter and the tarrasque... o you think this is right? i think npc's doesn't work with the CR rules, since they are 1/4 of a apropriate CR...


----------



## Crothian (May 21, 2005)

styker said:
			
		

> The rules about CR are strange... for example: the rule says that a fighter 20 is a CR 20, and the tarrasque is a CR 20 too, so... you gains the same xp for the fighter and the tarrasque... o you think this is right? i think npc's doesn't work with the CR rules, since they are 1/4 of a apropriate CR...




Ya, its about right.  The fighter will have lots of magical items as well as a greater intelligence to use strategy.  In many cases the fighter with be tougher to defear then the tarrasque


----------



## lonesoldier (May 21, 2005)

It really does depend on your characters/players. There is a very good chance that they will be better equipped (offensive and strategy-wise) than most critters. My players tend to min/max and use every single offical book/magazine they can get their hands on, so I usually throw stronger things there way.

Another idea would be to use the flat Xp system detailed in Unearthed Arcana, I have yet to use it myself, so could not tell you if it is balanced.


----------



## Odysseus (May 21, 2005)

Once your away from low levels, the party mix has a great impact on how difficult the encounter is.
I was in a campaign where the party was a psion,  a barbarian,  a wizard/ranger and a fighter/sorcerer. Because we all had fighter levels  in one class or another encounters with lots of low levels melee monsters were a walk over. But because we we're so multiclased encounter against a single monster  could be  a struggle.
Although a do agree to a point. Some encounters at low levels aren't threatning and use up resources. But once you get into high level encounters everythings threatning.


----------



## boredgremlin (May 22, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Ya, its about right. The fighter will have lots of magical items as well as a greater intelligence to use strategy. In many cases the fighter with be tougher to defear then the tarrasque





  Nah i dont think so. No amount of magical items are going to give that fighter a chance in hell toe to toe with a tarrasque. For one thing it has an average of 858 HP. That fighter is have around 20d10+120 (+6 CON)= 215. 
   The fighters BAB is 20/15/10/5.  Even high strength magic and feats arent gonna push it past 30 or so unless your in a rediculously high magic game. The tarrasque has a bite +57, and 2 horns +52, 2 claws +52 and a tail slap +52. All from the book. 
   The fighters AC is gonna be somthing like this. AC 10 (base)+13 (Mithral fullplate+5)=23,+7 (large steel shield+5)=30, +5 (ring of protection+5)=35, +5 (dex, dodge feat)=40. So the tarrasque only misses him on a 1. Add 10 more AC from spells and  the total is 50. Even with its worst attacks its only needs an 8.
  The tarrasques AC is 35. The fighter needs to roll a 5/10/15 and then a 20 to hit it. And the fighter only has 4 attacks against the T's 6 all of which are likely to hit. 
  Figuring the DR of 15/epic. Most 20th level fighters could barely hurt it even with a hit. Then there is SR 32 and regeneration 40. 40 people!!! That thing would beat down the 20th level fighter in around 3 or 4 rounds. He has no chance at all. 

    Yes CR's suck. Some are too high and some are way to low. I just look at the monster and if its about a tough as a PC I give it CR equal to its HD. Maybe a little more. So the 48HD tarrasque in my campaign has a CR of 50. Dragons too are grossly misrepresented by thier CR. If the DM plays the dragon up to its intelligence and uses all of its specail abilities it would probably massacre a party of equal CR.  So they also get full CR just like PC's.


----------



## Crothian (May 22, 2005)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Nah i dont think so. No amount of magical items are going to give that fighter a chance in hell toe to toe with a tarrasque.




You're right, but that's not what the CR means




> Yes CR's suck. Some are too high and some are way to low..




Yes some are too high and some are too low, but that doesn't mean the system sucks.  It is an art to figure out CRs not a science.


----------



## boredgremlin (May 22, 2005)

I dont know. Its full of some odd paradoxes. Like a party with a level 20 fighter, ranger, wizard and cleric is a level 20 party. A single level 20 fighter is a CR 20 encounter. So that one level 20 character is supposed to use up 20% of the other parties resources? Not likely. 
   Lol or this one. A party of 4 20th level characters is an EL 20. But if they fought against another party of 2 20th level characters it would be a CR of 23, i think. Which makes it a very difficult encounter. Now the description makes sense with what would probably happen. But it just sounds wierd that a 20th level party fighting itself would get the EXP from a CR 23. Lol all these acronyms are giving my flashbacks to being in the army. Ugh.


----------



## Shin Okada (May 22, 2005)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> I dont know. Its full of some odd paradoxes. Like a party with a level 20 fighter, ranger, wizard and cleric is a level 20 party. A single level 20 fighter is a CR 20 encounter. So that one level 20 character is supposed to use up 20% of the other parties resources? Not likely.




2 things,

1. It depends. Type and situation of encounters vary. A 20th-level fighter will be killed before engagement if spotted at 300 ft. away. But that guy is unlikely to be walking alone in the middle of plain. He is experienced well and knows his strength and weakness. So likely to be in a situation which he can fight well. If encountered in a close quarter, a 20th-level fighter may inflict significant damage to a PC of equal level in a single round. He may not kill one. But the party will spend some highest-level spell or two to kill him, and some other healing spell to cure injured member.

2. Most monsters are assumed to be appear alone or as a group of same kind of creatures. Typical NPCs are assumed to be forming tactically efficient band (like PC parties). A 20th-level party composed of a fighter type, an arcane caster, a cleric type, and a rogue type surely worth Encounter level of 24, right?





> Lol or this one. A party of 4 20th level characters is an EL 20. But if they fought against another party of 2 20th level characters it would be a CR of 23, i think. Which makes it a very difficult encounter. Now the description makes sense with what would probably happen. But it just sounds wierd that a 20th level party fighting itself would get the EXP from a CR 23. Lol all these acronyms are giving my flashbacks to being in the army. Ugh.




A party of four 20th-level characters is Effective Level of 20. And another party of two 20th-level  characters is Encounter Level of 22 (not CR, nor 23). And those 20th-level PCs do not get experience points from CR 23. They gain EXP from two CR 20 creatures (divided by 4). What is wrong?


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (May 22, 2005)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> That thing would beat down the 20th level fighter in around 3 or 4 rounds. He has no chance at all.




Not if that fighter is an archer...


----------



## styker (May 22, 2005)

The problem is: Who is more difficult to defeat? 2 balors or 2 pit fiends or 2 dragons of CR 20 or 2 tarrasques (let's supose that exist this) or a wizard 20 and a fighter 20 together... all thesse creatures give the same amount of xp but normal a wizard and a fighter alone will never defeat other of these creatures (just a overpowered wizard and fighter...)... so in my campaign if the enemy isn't waiting the pcs, with traps and a lot of things to balance the encounter, just the enemy i give his XP/2 in XP, same think when i do a dragon with draconomicon feats, treasure and all the strategy, i give more XP than normal...


----------



## S'mon (May 22, 2005)

Sometimes too high, sometimes too low. *shrug*  A CR 5 troll can easily mincemeat 5th level PCs.  A CR 9 frost giant may be no challenge to 9th level PCs.  It depends a lot on the group.  Generally, the Monster Manual sets melee brute CRs too low for my liking, and spellcaster-monster CRs too high.


----------



## Darkness (May 22, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> A CR 5 troll can easily mincemeat 5th level PCs.



 OTOH, I've seen a 1st-level Rogue kill a troll all by herself.






Although the fact that I was using a fumble system at the time and was constantly rolling 1s for the troll's attacks certainly was a factor.


----------



## S'mon (May 22, 2005)

NPC CRs are, I calculated, about 1/5 too high on average - best result is to take the NPC class level, multiply by 4/5, and round up - so Ftr-4 is CR-4, but so is Ftr-5.  Tweak where necessary, eg a Wiz-5 w Fireball is a good CR 5.

Your 6th-7th level party shouldn't be breaking the CR system yet IMO, most problems arise over 10th level.  I'd say treat them as 7th - EL 7 is 2 trolls, a hill giant, a troll + 2 ogres... unless the party gets the drop on them & can buff pre-fight, such encounters are extremely dangerous IME.  You may want to lower CRs for spellcasters monsters, eg I lowered the 3.0 Succubus from CR 9 to CR 6, which fits better with her capabilities.  For NPCs, using the 4/5 rule a single 8th level NPC is CR 7 but you'll find that not much of a challenge unless it's an ambush by a wizard, use 3 5th level/CR 4 NPCs of multiple classes & you'll get a good fight.  Even better, 2 5th level NPCs plus a huge bunch of CR 1/2 orcs with greataxes...


----------



## moritheil (May 22, 2005)

I spanked an EL 4 party left and right with a CR 3 crysmal.  Watch out for those at-will powers.

On the other hand, today (at a higher EL) they defeated a CR 4 jann in under half a round of combat, but got their butts handed to them by a CR 5 elemental.


----------



## Crothian (May 22, 2005)

Darkness said:
			
		

> OTOH, I've seen a 1st-level Rogue kill a troll all by herself.




Our second level party took out a troll, not that tough.....


----------



## Philip (May 22, 2005)

Tactics of the party: -2 to +2 CR
Tactics of the monster(s): -2 to +2 CR
Build of the character (min-maxed or poorly build): -1 to +1 CR
Composition of the party: -2 to +2 CR

Thus a 9th lvl party of 4 poorly built characters using poor tactics going against a CR 9 monster that uses excellent tactics, and also having a party composition that is poor against that particular monster, the encounter might reslove as a CR 16 encounter, thus causing a TPK.

You should always consider these factors when staging encounters.

A Mind Flayer may be only CR 8, but against a party of poorly built low will save characters sich as Fighters and Barbarians of 8th lvl, using levitate to stay out of the party's reach and the party bunching up will TPK the party without breaking a sweat.

If the same Mind Flayer goes up against a min-maxed party of four Clerics and wades into melee combat, he will be killed without the party breaking a sweat.

CR's are not absolutes.


----------



## Kerrick (May 22, 2005)

> Yes some are too high and some are too low, but that doesn't mean the system sucks. It is an art to figure out CRs not a science.




It says in the ELH that developing epic spells is an art, and look how _that_ came out... 

I think WotC says that because they were too lazy to codify a real system. Upper Krust has made a pretty good job of rendering CRs a science, and it's a good deal more accurate than the MM - on average, you multiply the existing CRs by 1.5. 



> A single level 20 fighter is a CR 20 encounter. So that one level 20 character is supposed to use up 20% of the other parties resources? Not likely.




You're confusing CR and EL, as Shin indirectly points out (and Philip explains a bit more clearly. A Ftr 20 just walking in the plain, with standard equipment, would likely be an EL 20 encounter. The same fighter in close quarters, or a similar situation where he can take advantage of the terrain, would be higher (say EL 22-23).



> They gain EXP from two CR 20 creatures (divided by 4).




No, they gain XP from an EL 23 encounter, which is 16,000 (divided by 4) as opposed to 12,000 for 2 CR 20 monsters. 



> I spanked an EL 4 party left and right with a CR 3 crysmal. Watch out for those at-will powers.
> 
> On the other hand, today (at a higher EL) they defeated a CR 4 jann in under half a round of combat, but got their butts handed to them by a CR 5 elemental.




And this just serves to point out that, all other things being equal, luck will always step in an take a hand in matters. A party could use the best tactics, have good characters and spell choices, but if they don't get the rolls and the DM does, they're going to lose.


----------



## moritheil (May 22, 2005)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> And this just serves to point out that, all other things being equal, luck will always step in an take a hand in matters. A party could use the best tactics, have good characters and spell choices, but if they don't get the rolls and the DM does, they're going to lose.




Yes.  The rolling of 1s at inopportune times can prove catastrophic.

But I also think the DR 5/- of the elemental, as well as its 10' reach, made a big difference.

It's funny, because they fought a troll previously and took it out without much trouble.


----------



## Philip (May 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> But I also think the DR 5/- of the elemental, as well as its 10' reach, made a big difference.




Our party of five 10th lvl guys fought an Elder Earth Elemental (CR 11) and we had a hell of a time defeating it.

Why? DR 10/- and a party composed of a Monk (insufficient damage to penetrate the DR), a Rogue (sneak attack useless), a rapier-wielding swashbuckler-like Fighter (crit's don't work, has no Power Attack, does 1d6+6 damage), a Cleric (insufficient damage to penetrate DR) and my Paladin/Sorcerer.

My Sorcerer had to do almost all of the damage to the Earth Elemental himself. The Cleric had two spells that did some damage, but after that it was just Fireball after Fireball while the rest of the party just stood between the Sorcerer and the Earth Elemental. Doing an average damage of 21 points per Fireball and the elemental having 228 hp. it was a long fight....

That was one encounter that cost us 80% of our resources and was potentially lethal for multiple party members, just because of our particular party composition.

DM's should take always take such things into consideration.


----------



## Oryan77 (May 23, 2005)

I think CR is assuming a party is prepared for that encounter. I have a hell of a time balancing my encounters because it all depends on how well I DM the NPC's in a fight, how much of the party can defeat DR and SR vs that critter, and how the dice roll.

In a single session I've had the party spank a tough encounter early on and then get a whooping from an easy encounter later on. This has happened in 2 different sessions, the first time resulting in a PC death from an "easy" encounter.

Situations like low level flying creatures vs a party that isn't built well for ranged combat and has no air support can throw the CR out of wack.


----------



## S'mon (May 23, 2005)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I think CR is assuming a party is prepared for that encounter.




Some of them clearly assume that - eg dragon CRs.  Whereas PC-class level = CR doesn't work if the party is prepped, it only really works if the NPCs are ambushing the PCs.  Most of the CRs assume "You open the door - roll for initiative" as far as I can tell.


----------



## Kerrick (May 23, 2005)

> I think CR is assuming a party is prepared for that encounter. I have a hell of a time balancing my encounters because it all depends on how well I DM the NPC's in a fight, how much of the party can defeat DR and SR vs that critter, and how the dice roll.




Right near the EL tables, there's a little table for adjusting the encounter EL - if the party had a really hard time of it, you can bump it up 1 or 2; if it was really easy, you can drop it 1 or 2, and thus adjust the XP accordingly.


----------



## Kapture (May 23, 2005)

helium3 said:
			
		

> While this may technically be true, I've also noticed that encounters like that are typically rather boring, in that even when I attempt to set the encounter up with flavor to heighten the drama, it still ends up being pretty boring because there is very little sense of risk.




Forgive me if I have this wrong, but it sounds like you're assuming every party of four level characters should only be facing EL 4 encounters.

Some encounters should be lower level, some higher (especially climactic encounters), to provide a sense of danger. The DMG even provides a ratio of how many encounters out of 13 should be of a level equal, above, or below party level.


----------



## Kapture (May 23, 2005)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Nah i dont think so. No amount of magical items are going to give that fighter a chance in hell toe to toe with a tarrasque.




A CR 20 isn't meant to be equal to a 20th level fighter. It's meant to be equal to a 20th level party: 4 20th level characters. That would give a Tarrasque a 75% chance of kicking your average tank's butt, I would guess.


----------



## shilsen (May 23, 2005)

Kapture said:
			
		

> A CR 20 isn't meant to be equal to a 20th level fighter. It's meant to be equal to a 20th level party: 4 20th level characters. That would give a Tarrasque a 75% chance of kicking your average tank's butt, I would guess.



 Wrong. A CR 20 is supposed to be a balanced encounter for a four person 20th level party, which (using the definition of balanced encounter in the D&D) means that it should use up about 20% of their resources and have literally no chance of killing any of them. A 20th lvl fighter (or wizard, or cleric, etc.) is CR 20.


----------



## Oryan77 (May 23, 2005)

Kapture said:
			
		

> The DMG even provides a ratio of how many encounters out of 13 should be of a level equal, above, or below party level.




I've always had a problem with that logic from the book. It seems like it's assuming all the PC's are doing is a dungeon crawl where you'll have one fight after another. When I'm DM'ing a city adventure or a wilderness treck, the PC's might only have 1 fight a day in 1 real days session. I have to make it challenging or the fight will be boring. Once you've played 3 sessions with 3-4 challenging fights, the PC's can already gain enough xp from those CR's to gain a level if you use standard XP. This system doesn't even concider if you give bonus RP xp or anything.

That's been a thorn in my side since I switched to 3e. I just give out half xp now and bonus xp isn't very much at all.


----------



## the Jester (May 23, 2005)

One thing that's been touched upon briefly above that really affects how difficult an enounter is, is the composition of the party.  

For example, a party composed of only small characters has a lot more trouble with DR than a medium party.  A party without a cleric finds undead to be much tougher.  A party without a rogue finds traps to be more dangerous.

The CR system seems to assume that you have one of the optimal characters in your party.  This is not always the case, but the reward doesn't change (unless you figure that the party composition changes the EL, which is an interesting approach to take).


----------



## diaglo (May 23, 2005)

the Jester said:
			
		

> One thing that's been touched upon briefly above that really affects how difficult an enounter is, is the composition of the party.
> 
> For example, a party composed of only small characters has a lot more trouble with DR than a medium party.  A party without a cleric finds undead to be much tougher.  A party without a rogue finds traps to be more dangerous.





read the story hour in my sig.

3 small PCs and 2 med PCs. no cleric.

fighting undead.

and the rogues can't use sneak attack nor crit the darn undead...


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (May 23, 2005)

styker said:
			
		

> The rules about CR are strange... for example: the rule says that a fighter 20 is a CR 20, and the tarrasque is a CR 20 too, so... you gains the same xp for the fighter and the tarrasque... o you think this is right? i think npc's doesn't work with the CR rules, since they are 1/4 of a apropriate CR...




Classed opponents do tend to have a lot less muscle but they are expected to have a bit more flexibility.  FREX, a hydra is very dangerous toe-to-toe for its given CR but is easily killed if you can attack with ranged weapons.  An NPC Fighter would be expected to have a bow and/or magical potions, etc., plus enough intelligence to make such simple tactics less effective.


----------



## styker (May 24, 2005)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Classed opponents do tend to have a lot less muscle but they are expected to have a bit more flexibility. FREX, a hydra is very dangerous toe-to-toe for its given CR but is easily killed if you can attack with ranged weapons. An NPC Fighter would be expected to have a bow and/or magical potions, etc., plus enough intelligence to make such simple tactics less effective.




But, for example a SOLAR or a BALOR... they are very strong, CR 23 and 20... a fighter even with bows, potions and magic items will never be as strong as a balor or solar of equal cr since the strategy doesn't  count (the creature have inteligence and strategy too...)


----------



## helium3 (May 24, 2005)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> Classed opponents do tend to have a lot less muscle but they are expected to have a bit more flexibility. FREX, a hydra is very dangerous toe-to-toe for its given CR but is easily killed if you can attack with ranged weapons. An NPC Fighter would be expected to have a bow and/or magical potions, etc., plus enough intelligence to make such simple tactics less effective.




In my opinion, the CR's for NPC opponents are more innaccurate than the CR's for straight monsters. I think it has something to do with the way NPC gear is handled. Basically, when you get to higher levels the PC's will have several times more gear than the NPC's, and that really starts to matter. In one of my older games, where the PC's got to 15th and 16th level this was really apparent. If the NPC's were of the appropriate CR and didn't get the drop on the players in some way, combat was over in two to three rounds with a minimum of fuss.


----------



## iwatt (May 24, 2005)

Philip said:
			
		

> .... a min-maxed party of four Clerics and wades into melee combat, he will be killed without the party breaking a sweat....




Very few things can stand up to a min-maxed party of 4 clerics.


----------



## satori01 (May 24, 2005)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Wrong. A CR 20 is supposed to be a balanced encounter for a four person 20th level party, which (using the definition of balanced encounter in the D&D) means that it should use up about 20% of their resources and have literally no chance of killing any of them. A 20th lvl fighter (or wizard, or cleric, etc.) is CR 20.




Err wrong to what you said.  20% of resources is never defined in the DMG, it could be what you said, or it could be one player takes the dirt nap while everyone else is realtively unscathed.  An encounter that is +2 cr over the parties Average level is considered twice as difficult as an encounter with a CR value equal to party level.

Monster CRs to me are a decent indicator of the power level of a monster.  While the CR of a monster is the prime determinate of an encounters EL, I think a lot of people overlook such important factors as the terrain, surprise,  how many resources the party has already expended and other mitagating factors.

A party that has to go through 4 enounters where the CRs are Average Party level -1 with no rest and no recovery of spells and then fight the BBEG who has terrain advantage and is +2 CR over Average Party level and I can easily see a final exp bonus for that encounter of + 50% for circumstance and terrain advantage.

As for the person describing his parties encounter with the Earth Elemental, I agree a dm should be aware when he is throwing a monster that a party does not stack up well against, and I would say your dm proabaly was aware and did it on purpose.  Any game where players have the option to customize their characters in a specialized way is going to yield "equal" monsters that they cut through like butter, and monsters that cut through them as butter.

I wouldnt penalize a player of a cleric(or paladin), specializing in turning, by reducing the exp on an encounter due to a really nice turn roll that killed the undead.  Nor would I increase the exp of an encounter that featuring a monster that stacks quite nicely against a specialized party, unless terrain or other considerations neccistated it.

A sneak attack/ critical hit specialized party is going to suck against high DR/ not crit creatures.  However that party against a whole host of creatures with low ACs and realtively low damage like Purple Worms or Gray Renders are going to rock the casbah .


----------



## styker (May 30, 2005)

Terrible are monster with gear, for example inteligent monster that have gear in the treasure... they will use it... and more difficult to beat then (Balor with cloak of displacement)...


----------



## Felnar (May 30, 2005)

Several people have mentioned that dragons CR's aren't accurate, but does anyone have a good way of adjusting their CR's.


----------



## Darkness (May 30, 2005)

Felnar said:
			
		

> Several people have mentioned that dragons CR's aren't accurate, but does anyone have a good way of adjusting their CR's.



 Well, 3.5 already adjusted several dragon CRs. I don't know which ones, if any, are still too low.


----------



## Odysseus (May 30, 2005)

Two things.
First dragon CR were atifically lowered , on the grounds that if you know your fighting a dragon  you know how dangerous they are. wotc logic not mine.

Second. The CR system is calculated based on what the iconic characters are capable of with equipment based on the funds per character level,as per the dmg. So if your having problems with the CR system, compare your party with the iconic characters and total up the value of the characters equipment , and see how they compare.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 31, 2005)

Hey all! 

I find it strange that people still complain about Challenge Ratings 18 months after I solved all the problems associated with it...see the attached file. There is also an updated version in the Grim Tales book by Bad Axe Games which is probably more condensed and slightly easier to follow (though it doesn't include the Challenge Ratings for the entire Monster Manual and Epic Level Handbook which are in that file). 

Hope that helps.



			
				styker said:
			
		

> But, for example a SOLAR or a BALOR... they are very strong, CR 23 and 20... a fighter even with bows, potions and magic items will never be as strong as a balor or solar of equal cr since the strategy doesn't  count (the creature have inteligence and strategy too...)




The problem herein is that WotC mistakenly calculate Challenge Rating and Effective Class Level as the same thing for characters, but totally different things for monsters....anyway, its all solved in the attached pdf.


----------



## Sledge (May 31, 2005)

Kerrick said:
			
		

> No, they gain XP from an EL 23 encounter, which is 16,000 (divided by 4) as opposed to 12,000 for 2 CR 20 monsters.



You may wish to reread pg 37 of the DMG where it goes into detail about experience and how each monster is to be calculated individually.


----------



## boredgremlin (May 31, 2005)

That must be a 3.5 change. I know in 3.0 they added em together. Anyway like a lot of people (in my experiance) I just skimmed the 3.5 one. Its just boring reading the same book over for the 4 or 5th time, especially for just a few minor changes.


----------



## rln (May 31, 2005)

Heh...

In one of the first 3.0 adventures (Attack on Myth Drannor), there's an illithilich trapped in a tomb. The adventurers are meant to open the door and the monster, seeing an opening for escape, will mind blast the heroes and run for it.

Naturally, the situation as written is rather ineptly scripted. The monster has no henchmen, the only way out is through the adventurers and for some reason, _it doesn't know that the heroes are coming!_.

Our DM played it as written. We won the initiative, and dove into cover, which protected us against the paralysing mind blast; all except the barbarian, which charged it and dealt it a whopping 48HP damage before the illithilich let loose his mind blast (cone attack) - and the barbarian makes his save!

The next round, the barbarian powerattacked twice, and managed to get an AoO when the Alhoon tried to escape (or perhaps cast a spell, I don't remember which). 

And thus the Alhoon, on paper a CR19 monster, was defeated pretty much single-handedly by a Level 7 half-orc barbarian.


----------



## Jack Simth (May 31, 2005)

Did he get full XP?  Do the XP tables even stretch that far?


----------



## Shin Okada (May 31, 2005)

Felnar said:
			
		

> Several people have mentioned that dragons CR's aren't accurate, but does anyone have a good way of adjusting their CR's.




"Make it famous" is the suggested way and it is working for me. In most adventure modules, True Dragons never appear without warning. In a nearby town, or from denizens of the dungeon, PCs hear about the dragon. Once the color is known, they can prepare the countermeasure against breath weapon. PC's will try to keep the buffing spells until they meat the dragon (as they know that they need the spells for sure). And Dragon's lair is usually not small and  PCs can buff when entering it. Thus, encounter against dragon is not that much overpowering, while that will certainly let PCs expend a lot of resources.


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2005)

Felnar said:
			
		

> Several people have mentioned that dragons CR's aren't accurate, but does anyone have a good way of adjusting their CR's.




I find adding +2 seems to work.  Or for random dungeons keep the dragon CRs but double the XP award.


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2005)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> The problem herein is that WotC mistakenly calculate Challenge Rating and Effective Class Level as the same thing for characters, but totally different things for monsters....anyway, its all solved in the attached pdf.




Hi Craig - looking at this again trying to understand it, you say "Challenge Ratings (CRs) are a measurement of power. There are two general principles regarding CR: firstly that it signifies a moderately challenging encounter for a party of 4-5 characters of the same power...."

You put a Great Wyrm Red at CR 62, so you appear to say that a Great Wyrm Red Dragon is a suitable challenge for a 62nd level party.  Is that right?  It seems unlikely.  By your EL it's EL 24 which means by your definition of EL that it is equal in power to a group of 4 24th level PCs, which sounds plausible.

Am I right that this CR 62/EL24 dragon is actually equal to 

1.  1 62nd level PC, or
2.  4 24th level PCs?

I can see those both being true; but surely it's not a moderate challenge for 4 62nd level PCs?


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2005)

But I don't understand how under the U_K system a young black dragon can be CR 11 but EL 14???


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2005)

I think... each PC is CR = Level, but to get the party EL I need to translate CRs into ELs?  So 1 5th level PC is EL 10 by U_K system, so 4 would be, er, no...

I add together the CRs/Levels, so 4 x5 = 20, then take away 4, = 16?  So 4 5th level PCs are CR 16?  So their EL is 17?  I have a headache now...


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 31, 2005)

Hi S'mon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Hi Craig - looking at this again trying to understand it, you say "Challenge Ratings (CRs) are a measurement of power. There are two general principles regarding CR: firstly that it signifies a moderately challenging encounter for a party of 4-5 characters of the same power...."
> 
> You put a Great Wyrm Red at CR 62, so you appear to say that a Great Wyrm Red Dragon is a suitable challenge for a 62nd level party.  Is that right?




Not exactly, depends on your definition of moderate.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> It seems unlikely.




I agree.

Two things. 

Firstly under this system you take account of a PCs inherant ability scores.

Standard point buy is +1 CR. Wishes purchased (?) would also affect a characters CR (unless the wishes were from tomes or rings that you were incorporating into their equipment wealth).

Secondly, a moderate encounter by WotC standards (where monsters are concerned) does not give the same results as my system. To replicate a WotC 'moderate' encounter use EL -2 (instead of EL -4).

By your EL it's EL 24 which means by your definition of EL that it is equal in power to a group of 4 24th level PCs, which sounds plausible.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Am I right that this CR 62/EL24 dragon is actually equal to
> 
> 1.  1 62nd level PC, or




Technically a 61st-level PC (using standard point buy with no inherant wishes extreneous to his equipment wealth)



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> 2.  4 24th level PCs?




Actually the dragon would be fractionally tougher than 4 24th-level PCs. A 50/50 fight depending on situational modifiers.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> I can see those both being true; but surely it's not a moderate challenge for 4 62nd level PCs?




As I mentioned earlier, to mimic a moderate challenge as WotC infer it, use an EL -2 (instead of an EL -4) encounter.

4 61st-level PCs will breeze through such a dragon as easily as 4 PCs of any level against a single character of equal level.

All monster encounters in the MM are set CRs that make them EL -2 encounters by my reckoning. So if a moderate encounter 'to you' means the same difficulty as WotC, use EL -2....which in this case would be a party of 4 39-46th-level characters.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 31, 2005)

Hey S'mon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> But I don't understand how under the U_K system a young black dragon can be CR 11 but EL 14???




Its simple.

The conversion table uses the following principle: when you double the CR, the EL increases by +4.

CR 1 = EL 1
CR 2 = EL 5
CR 4 = EL 9
CR 8 = EL 13
CR 16 = EL 17
CR 32 = EL 21
etc.


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2005)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> As I mentioned earlier, to mimic a moderate challenge as WotC infer it, use an EL -2 (instead of an EL -4) encounter.
> 
> 4 61st-level PCs will breeze through such a dragon as easily as 4 PCs of any level against a single character of equal level.
> 
> All monster encounters in the MM are set CRs that make them EL -2 encounters by my reckoning. So if a moderate encounter 'to you' means the same difficulty as WotC, use EL -2....which in this case would be a party of 4 39-46th-level characters.




OK thanks, that's helpful.


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2005)

So... on your analysis it seems to me a WoTC CR 10 means it's actually about 50% as powerful as a party of 4 level 10 PCs; but in a battle with the 4 of them the creature will do 50% as much damage as them and take 200% as much, so will be defeated with 25% resources, like the DMG says.  But the same creature vs 2 PCs would be an even match, using up on average 100% resources - ie 50% TPK.  Which the DMG does not say.  Hm, that explains a lot...


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 31, 2005)

Hey S'mon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> I think... each PC is CR = Level, but to get the party EL I need to translate CRs into ELs?  So 1 5th level PC is EL 10 by U_K system, so 4 would be, er, no...
> 
> I add together the CRs/Levels, so 4 x5 = 20, then take away 4, = 16?  So 4 5th level PCs are CR 16?  So their EL is 17?  I have a headache now...




Its all very simple...take a deep breath and look at the top of the right hand column on page 15. It takes you through the 3 steps.

Step 1: Add all the CRs.

eg. x3 5th-level PCs and 1 6th-level PC (all with standard point buy which is +1 CR)

Total 25 (5+1 + 5+1 + 5+1 + 6+1)

Step 2: Convert to Encounter Level using table 2-1.

eg. CR 25 = EL 19

Step 3: Modify for the number of characters using table 2-2.

eg. Party of Four Characters = EL -4. 

So EL 19 - 4 = EL 15

The party of 3 5th-level and 1 6th-level character are EL 15.



So if you want to set them a moderate encounter use EL 11 = single monster of CR 6 (by my system)

eg. Green Dragon Wyrmling, Basilisk, Troll, Vampire Spawn etc.

If you want a tough encounter (or WotC moderate encounter) use EL 13 = single monster CR 8-9 (by my system)

eg. Very Young Black Dragon, Chuul, Bearded Devil, Megaraptor etc.

If you want a difficult encounter use EL 15 = single monster of CR 12-13 (by my system).

eg. Very Young Red Dragon, Athach, Erinyes, Tyrannosaurus etc.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 31, 2005)

Hey S'mon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> So... on your analysis it seems to me a WoTC CR 10 means it's actually about 50% as powerful as a party of 4 level 10 PCs;




Yes.

Of course I am making a generalism about WotC CRs, for accurate CRs see the list on the pdf. 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> but in a battle with the 4 of them the creature will do 50% as much damage as them and take 200% as much, so will be defeated with 25% resources, like the DMG says.




A single (WotC) CR 10 monster vs. a party of 4 10th-level PCs, would, on average, result in:

75% chance of Party victory, using 50% of their resources.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> But the same creature vs 2 PCs would be an even match, using up on average 100% resources - ie 50% TPK.  Which the DMG does not say.  Hm, that explains a lot...




Yes.

A single (WotC) CR 10 monster vs. a party of 2 10th-level PCs, would, on average, result in:

50% chance of Party victory, using 100% of their resources.


----------



## Cheiromancer (May 31, 2005)

Is this change in the definition of "moderate" something recent?

I have v5 of the Challenging Challenge Ratings PDF, and table 2-5 has (Moderate) besides the EL difference of -4; that's also the row that gives 75 xp per level to someone in a 4-member party.  So 13.333 moderate encounters is a level.

An EL-4 difference corresponds to a party opposing a character of equal level, or a party of 4 61st level characters fighting a Great Red Wyrm.

What you seem to be saying is that a WotC moderate encounter is really a -2 EL difference; a tough encounter; e.g. a party of 40th level characters fighting the Great Wyrm Red.  This would give them all (150 x 40) 6000 xp for the exercise.

Am I correct?  Or should they get  3000 xp for what is a WotC moderate encounter?


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 31, 2005)

Hey Cheiromancer mate! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> Is this change in the definition of "moderate" something recent?
> 
> I have v5 of the Challenging Challenge Ratings PDF, and table 2-5 has (Moderate) besides the EL difference of -4; that's also the row that gives 75 xp per level to someone in a 4-member party.  So 13.333 moderate encounters is a level.
> 
> ...




A moderate encounter is used to describe an EL-4 encounter. eg. x4 15th-level characters vs. a single 15th-level character.

But by my reckoning the the majority of WotC monster CRs are 2/3rds what they should be if we treated CR and ECL as the same thing...which of course it should be.

So WotC 'moderate' monster encounters are actually 'tough' encounters.

The Red Dragons CR you give above was determined by me, not WotC, and is the monsters ECL (and proper CR).


----------



## Cheiromancer (May 31, 2005)

I guess what I am worrying about is the equivocation in the expression "13.333 moderate encounters yields enough experience points for participating characters to advance one level."

Is that 13.333 EL-2 encounters, or 13.333 EL-4 encounters?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (May 31, 2005)

Can anyone post links to the old threads where this Upper Krust's system is hashed out and discussed? I'd be very interested in reading them all.


----------



## Nail (May 31, 2005)

They are huge...and often bumped in the house rule forum.


----------



## Cheiromancer (May 31, 2005)

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Can anyone post links to the old threads where this Upper Krust's system is hashed out and discussed? I'd be very interested in reading them all.




This post gives all the main (and most of the secondary) threads relating to UK's system.  Happy reading!

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2269320


----------



## Raelcreve (May 31, 2005)

*Psions and Tarrasques and Balors, OH MY!*

There are multiple problems inherent in the system.  One of the biggest is that too many people see the rules as absolutes, instead of guidelines.  Pulling a creature out of the book by CR rating alone is not enough to prepare for an adventure as a DM.  As Eric A. can attest, my encounters tend to be much more difficult than the CR would suggest.  I'm a tough DM, and average about 1 PC death per play session; we'll not talk about friendly fire here.  I'm also a generous DM and award XP appropriately.  But a lucky strike or smart play from a PC can end almost any encounter quickly.  Even when I build very difficult encounters, I always leave a way out, either to victory or to retreat.  Whether the players find it, well, that's a different story.

This is how I personally do it:

1) KNOW YOUR PARTY!  If you don't do this, the rest is pointless.

2) Pick a monster/creature/opponent because it fits the local, story, or scene, not because of it's CR rating.  Any creature can be made weaker or stronger...enough to challenge any party.

3) Get to KNOW monsters and their abilities.
  a) Some monsters have stupidly high CRs, because of one ability.  What happens when you strip that ability, or change it to something less lethal?  What's a Famine Spirit without its Vorpal Bite?
  b) Some monsters have stupidly low CRs, because the DMG doesn't take into account its will to live (among other things).  20 orc warriors with 4 sergeants and one captain, armed with short bows, short spears and tower shields and fighting in turtles can give playes nightmares for weeks.

4) Get to know what abilities that your PCs have trouble with, and take advantage of it.  In the same vein, throw some freebies at them to build their confidence.

5) It's important to understand that most players stumble on to monsters (and not the other way around).  Most beasties will be prepared for adventurers.  In fact, it's probably a favorite menu item!  Oooh, roast wizard, rogue on a spit, boiled fighter, and cleric on the half shell, yummy!  As the DM you should be playing the monsters as if they were your PCs (which in fact, they are).

6) Smart monsters retreat.  In fact, the smarter the beastie, the more likely it will know it's outmatched, use its most lethal and/or favorite power to attempt to damage/kill a PC or two, and retreat to the hills.  They may regroup, get reinforcements, buff themselves up, set up an ambush, etc.  Very few intelligent creatures will fight to the death, unless they are backed into a corner, magically bound to do so, or protecting something (like a nest or young).

7) Monster use their magic items.  Unless it's biologically impossible, less effective than it's natural weaponry, or the creature is not intelligent, make the players EARN their treasure.  Nothing hurts so bad, is so valued, or brings bigger smiles, than pulling out the half used wand of fireballs that you pried from the dead Raksasha's hand...the one it used on you in its 20x20 bedroom (which it was immune to).

Remember, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.

DMing is an art, not a science.  Don't try to turn it into one, or you'll suck all the fun out of the game.  In fact, you'll probably feel like you're playing EverCrack.


----------



## azmodean (May 31, 2005)

Philip said:
			
		

> Our party of five 10th lvl guys fought an Elder Earth Elemental (CR 11) and we had a hell of a time defeating it.
> 
> [SNIP details of fight]
> 
> ...




I've always had problems with this particular sentiment.  I think the players should be the ones taking such things into consideration.  If a party is specialized toward fighting creatures with discernable anatomies (crit buffing, sneak attacks, etc...) they should understand that they will have problems with encounters with non-crittable creatures and plan accordingly, with equipment and/or tactics which will help them in that area.  I have never understood the mindset that says that given a party with a set of arbitrarily chosen abilities, it is the DM's responsibility to ensure that the encounters aren't too hard.  IMO it is the very core conept of a rpg that the characters will need to interact with their environment and change themselves in order to overcome challenges as opposed to the opposite happening.  (the DM adjusting encounters so that the Pcs can handle them)


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 31, 2005)

Hey Cheiromancer matey! 



			
				Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I guess what I am worrying about is the equivocation in the expression "13.333 moderate encounters yields enough experience points for participating characters to advance one level."
> 
> Is that 13.333 EL-2 encounters, or 13.333 EL-4 encounters?




Technically thats up to the DM. I would have said EL -4 by default, but some people may want slower advancement. The system is flexible enough to support either methods.


----------



## S'mon (May 31, 2005)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Technically thats up to the DM. I would have said EL -4 by default, but some people may want slower advancement. The system is flexible enough to support either methods.




(Tried to post earlier but my work PC doesn't like me wasting time on ENW)   
I think the default XP rate in 3e is already too high, and this would increase it further.  In fact using this would be a good opportunity to change the default award from 300xLevel to 100xLevel, since it would scale back up to around 2/3 current standard XP.

Re CRs, as a GM who usually runs published scenarios and doesn't have time to go over all the stat blocks I'm of the opinion that, to coin a phrase, you go to the table with the CRs you have, not the CRs you would wish to have.  It might be nice to convert to the U_K system but it requires several extra steps in XP calculation and for now I'm sticking with XP based off CR.  WoTC CRs are far from perfect, but they appear to do 1 thing quite well, which is provide a monster that is a challenging encounter for a PC group of level equal to the CR.  They don't work for multiple creatures though.  What Craig has said fits my own suspicion that 3e's designers never thought much about the difference between 

(1) 4 PCs fighting monster X then monster Y, and
(2) 4 PCs fighting monster X + monster Y at the same time.

In the first case, if the monster X is as tough as 2 PCs, it deals 50% as much damage as the group and lasts 50% as long, so it will inflict about 25% resource loss on the group.  Incidentally if the monster is a melee brute that 25% may be all the hps of 1 PC, so these are definitely dangerous encounters.  If monster Y is the same CR as X the party can beat both having lost 50% resources.

In the second case, fighting the same monsters at once, the monsters together dish out 100% as much damage as the PCs and together last 100% as long, so on average will inflict 100% resource loss - TPK.  In fact because the PC group's offensive power drops with 1/4 casualties while the monsters need 1/2 casualties before they lose attacks, the imbalance is even greater.  Now, area effect spells can alter the calculation, but the fact remains that 2 creatures at once, both able to attack, is far more dangerous than 2 creatures encountered consecutively.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jun 1, 2005)

S'mon,

Generally simultaneous encounters are deadlier than sequential ones, but not always.  Whether using area of effect spells, cleave, whirlwind attack, economical use of buffs, etc., it is sometimes to the party's advantage to take down all their enemies at once.

I would be in favor of changing the xp formula.  My CHI-RHO formula would be more elegant with 100 xp than with 300.

Chi(X) = (x12 + x22 + x32 + ... + xm2) * 300
Rho(P) = (p12 + p22 + p32 + ... + pn2)
xp(k) = Chi(X) / Rho(P) * pk

xn is the CR of the nth monster in the encounter X, and pk is the CR (=ECL) of the kth player in the party P.  xp(k) is the experience that character gets from the encounter.


----------



## boredgremlin (Jun 1, 2005)

Raelcreve said:
			
		

> There are multiple problems inherent in the system. One of the biggest is that too many people see the rules as absolutes, instead of guidelines. Pulling a creature out of the book by CR rating alone is not enough to prepare for an adventure as a DM. As Eric A. can attest, my encounters tend to be much more difficult than the CR would suggest. I'm a tough DM, and average about 1 PC death per play session; we'll not talk about friendly fire here. I'm also a generous DM and award XP appropriately. But a lucky strike or smart play from a PC can end almost any encounter quickly. Even when I build very difficult encounters, I always leave a way out, either to victory or to retreat. Whether the players find it, well, that's a different story.
> 
> This is how I personally do it:
> 
> ...






  Well said. Couldnt agree more.


----------



## Ballard_Alvar (Jun 1, 2005)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Err wrong to what you said. 20% of resources is never defined in the DMG, it could be what you said, or it could be one player takes the dirt nap while everyone else is realtively unscathed. An encounter that is +2 cr over the parties Average level is considered twice as difficult as an encounter with a CR value equal to party level.




. . . I remember the time my 14th (or was it 15th) level party battled the Balor.  there were 5 of us +1 npc.  We defeated it before the first round of combat ended.  that was awesome.  needless to say we leveled.+


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 1, 2005)

Hey S'mon! 



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Re CRs, as a GM who usually runs published scenarios and doesn't have time to go over all the stat blocks I'm of the opinion that, to coin a phrase, you go to the table with the CRs you have, not the CRs you would wish to have.  It might be nice to convert to the U_K system but it requires several extra steps in XP calculation and for now I'm sticking with XP based off CR.  WoTC CRs are far from perfect, but they appear to do 1 thing quite well, which is provide a monster that is a challenging encounter for a PC group of level equal to the CR.




I think the thing about the official Challenge Rating system is that its just about works well enough over the first 20 levels (or at least the first 15 or so) to not be much of a problem. Its really when you get to epic levels that you can notice major discrepancies, and as you know the CR/EL system I designed was initially created out of problems I saw in trying to use the official rules to balance epic/immortal gaming.

So although my rules are clearly superior, unless your PCs are either very high (15+), epic or immortal level its probably not a necessity.

Of course its still worthwhile taking a look at the pdf even if you don't plan on using the challenge rating system presented, because there are (IMO) some good ideas on balancing monster design, class/prestige class creation and so forth.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 1, 2005)

Hey there Ballard_Alvar! 



			
				Ballard_Alvar said:
			
		

> . . . I remember the time my 14th (or was it 15th) level party battled the Balor.  there were 5 of us +1 npc.  We defeated it before the first round of combat ended.  that was awesome.  needless to say we leveled.+




3.0 or 3.5 Balor though?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 1, 2005)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I think the thing about the official Challenge Rating system is that its just about works well enough over the first 20 levels (or at least the first 15 or so) to not be much of a problem. Its really when you get to epic levels that you can notice major discrepancies, and as you know the CR/EL system I designed was initially created out of problems I saw in trying to use the official rules to balance epic/immortal gaming.
> 
> So although my rules are clearly superior, unless your PCs are either very high (15+), epic or immortal level its probably not a necessity.




Yup - of course, if I GM to above low-epic and I'm using CR-based XP the U_K system becomes very attractive!  My main campaign is only 3rd level though, hence WoTC CRs are pretty much functional.  My high-level campaign is approaching 19th, but the XP there has been pretty much freeform recently, around 3000 XP/session.  Last time I gave caculated XP I'd run a WoTC free mini scenario with a "CR 24" classed dragon (CR 14 old white w 10 Druid levels) - ie it was really CR 19, tops, and the PCs got 4 times the XP it was really worth.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 2, 2005)

rln said:
			
		

> And thus the Alhoon, on paper a CR19 monster, was defeated pretty much single-handedly by a Level 7 half-orc barbarian.




Well, basically this is a problem because an awful lot of monsters are 'paper tigers'. If you get in some solid hits, and get lucky on saves then the monster is a goner. Contrarily if you get a bit unlucky, the party is a goner. An illithid is basically that - if he goes first and successfully mind-blasts the party, then that's it - you're dead.

If he doesn't, the party will probably slice him up good.


----------



## styker (Jun 2, 2005)

Since we are talking about CR, i'd like opinios about som monster that i am creating and his CR... can be here?


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (Jun 2, 2005)

styker said:
			
		

> Since we are talking about CR, i'd like opinios about som monster that i am creating and his CR... can be here?



I think the CR is too low, raise it by 2.


----------



## styker (Jun 3, 2005)

What do you think about the CR of this monster???

*Iscariot*



Large Outsider (Taanari, Extraplanar, Chaotic Evil)

Hit Dice:

36d8+ 360 (648 hp)

Initiative:

+10

Speed:

50 ft. (10 squares), fly 150 ft. (good)

Armor Class:

52(–1 size, +6 Dex, +21 natural, +8 armor, +8 insight), touch 19, flat-footed 42.

Base Attack/Grapple:

+36/+43

Attack:

+5 vorpal adamantine greataxe +50/+45/+40/+35 melee (2d8+18/19–20/x3) or slam +44 melee (2d8+13).

Space/Reach:

10 ft./10 ft.

Special Attacks:

Spell-like abilities, summon demon, Spellfire.

Special Qualities:

Damage reduction 15/cold iron and good, darkvision 60 ft., flaming body, immunity to electricity, fire, and poison, resistance to acid 10 and cold 10, spell resistance 39, telepathy 100 ft., item master,  true seeing.

Saves:

Fort +35 Ref +31 Will +33

Abilities:

Str 28, Dex 23, Con 30, Int 29, Wis 27, Cha 33

Skills:

Concentration +43, Spellcraft +41, Knowledge(four) +41, Spot +41, Listen +41, Search +42, Bluff +44, Intimidate +42, Jump +42 Gather Information +44 Diplomacy  +44 Climb +42.

Feats:

Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Initiative, Improved Sunder, Quicken Spell-Like Ability(dispel magic greater), Power Attack, Improved Critical, Weapon Focus, Quicken Spell-Like Ability(dimensional door), Overwhilming Critical, Desvanting Critical, Blindingspeed(x2).

Environment:

The abysm

Organization:

Solitary 

Challenge Rating:

25

Treasure:

Triple of standard coins; double goods; triple items

Alignment:

Chaotic Evil


*Combat*

Fear(Ex): As a free action Iscariot can invoke a fear effect like the spell (Will DC 40).

Spellfire(Su): Because of the Alassar’s Stone Iscariot now has the power to use the spellfire like a spellfire wielder, every time he is target of a spell(except from area spell) he absords the energy in the form of spell points, he can spent this spell points to give +1 bonus to saving throws, attacks and skill tests, for every spell point spend in this way he gains a +1 bonus.

Vulnerable Point(Ex): If a opponet has a natural 20 and confirm the critical hit he hits the Alassar’s Stone doing that Iscariot take a damage equals Spell Points with him x 10.

Flaming Body(Su): Because of the Alassar’s Stone Iscariot is surrounded for a fire aura that deals 6d6 of fire damage every round to any meele opponent.

Spell-Like Abilities: At will— blasphemy (DC 28), dominate monster (DC 30), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), insanity (DC 28), power word stun, telekinesis (DC 26), unholy aura (DC 29); detect good, detect law, magic missile, wall of energy, discern location, suggestion, unhallow, unholy aura, water breathing, Harm(DC 27), fireball(DC 24), dispel magic, dispel magic greater, dimensional door; 1/day—fire storm (DC 29), disintegrate(DC 27), shapechange, meteor swarm(DC 30). Caster level 20th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.

True Seeing (Sp):  Always actived, she can be dispelled, but the archdemon can reactivate them as a free action.

Equipment: Iscariot always is encountered using his Head’s Killer (+5 Vorpal GreatAxe), Bracers of Armor +8, Cloak of Resistance +5. Scrolls of Maze, Heal x2.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 3, 2005)

Hey styker! 



			
				styker said:
			
		

> What do you think about the CR of this monster???
> 
> *Iscariot*
> 
> ...




Its (approximately*) ECL 53 and CR 35 (by WotC standards)

*I went over the stats pretty quickly, also I wasn't totally sure what was going on with regards Spellfire and Vulnerable Point so on the fly I just ad hoc'ed that they would cancel each other out. Other that that possible mistake (?) it should be fairly accurate.

It should be noted that listed amongst its spells you have Unholy Aura twice, Greater Dispel Magic twice and Dispel Magic. I removed one of each when determining the CR.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 3, 2005)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Its (approximately*) ECL 53 and CR 35 (by WotC standards)




I independently came up with a WoTC CR of precisely CR 35 also, yup.     

Rem a WoTC CR is "challenging encounter for a typical PC group of this level".  25 looks significantly too low to me.


----------



## styker (Jun 3, 2005)

35???? i made his sheet using the the grazzt stats, so he is more weak than demogorgon (CR 28 - 30...). How can be 35?


----------



## S'mon (Jun 3, 2005)

Maybe Demogorgon is actually higher than CR 28 and his CR was incorrectly assigned?  Many Epic CRs are assigned wrongly (Zirrushi).


----------



## styker (Jun 4, 2005)

if you compare the full potential of a 25th level group they will defeat this enemy without much damage... a level 35 or maybe 30 party will destroy him easily like an ant. So i think this CR is a little wrong...


----------



## boredgremlin (Jun 4, 2005)

Well CR's break down in higher levels. Enemy HP and defensive measures dont keep pace with damage dealing potential at high levels.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 4, 2005)

styker said:
			
		

> if you compare the full potential of a 25th level group they will defeat this enemy without much damage... a level 35 or maybe 30 party will destroy him easily like an ant. So i think this CR is a little wrong...





Maybe if they are able to buff-scry-teleport, is that what you mean by 'full potential'?  In an encounter with neither side buffed he will easily destroy a standard party of 4 25th level Iconics IMO.


----------



## S'mon (Jun 4, 2005)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Well CR's break down in higher levels. Enemy HP and defensive measures dont keep pace with damage dealing potential at high levels.




I'm going by "challenging encounter for a balanced party of 4 25 point buy Iconic default array PCs with standard PC wealth for their level" which is supposedly the WoTC standard.  Balanced means Fighter Rogue Wizard Cleric or similar, encountering monster in a situation where neither side is prepped and at close but not point blank range, probably 50-80'.

Note that under this definition a "CR 25" dragon will also trash a level 25 party.  The dragon CRs are assigned assuming a fully buffed & ready party attacks the dragon.  Under this dragon-style definition but assuming Iconic PCs I can see the monster being maybe as low as CR 28.  If your PCs are significantly tougher than the Iconics obviously it could be lower, maybe CR 25 or even lower if they're 50 point PCs with powerful Prestige classes and tons of Epic gear who buff/scry/port in on the critter.  In fact many WoTC-assigned Epic CRs seem to assume this definition...


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Jun 4, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> If your PCs are significantly tougher than the Iconics obviously it could be lower, maybe CR 25 or even lower if they're 50 point PCs with powerful Prestige classes and tons of Epic gear who buff/scry/port in on the critter.



It has been my experience that this is exactly the case that most campaigns that reach epic levels are far above the Iconics' level of power and toughness and DMs don't fully grasp the situation.


----------



## styker (Jun 4, 2005)

> Maybe if they are able to buff-scry-teleport, is that what you mean by 'full potential'? In an encounter with neither side buffed he will easily destroy a standard party of 4 25th level Iconics IMO.




Off course, in levels above 15 every monster can easily destroy a party without buff and right defenses, it's assumed that your character will always have defenses and buffs in his body. It's because of this that the mage disjuction is so terrible to a group... or do you want t say that high levels partys never use heroes feast, energy immunity, contigency, time stop (to buff again if their defenses are dismissed) or maybe wall to late the enemy to give time to cast the protection again...


----------



## boredgremlin (Jun 5, 2005)

Lol anyone else remember baldurs gate 2? Every wizard in that came did the timestop-buff trick. never stopped me from killing them easily. And 3rd edition got rid of a lot of the rediculously overpowered defenses from 2nd edition. 

   There are numerous ways to stop a player from doing things like that, too many to even list. But for DM's who cant think of any. Have a BBEG start doing it to the players. Watch all the neat ideas they come up with to beat the strategy. Then, steal em.


----------



## Campbell (Jun 5, 2005)

Hey UK Mate,

I've been attemptinting to calculate the CR of the Grell writeup in Lords of Madness, and was unsure how to calculate the value of a couple of their abilities. Specifically Expert Grappler, their variant paralysis ability, and the sightless ability were troublesome factors. Specifics are below. Normally I'd be satisfied with some educated guesses, but I plan to make heavy use of Grells in an upcoming campaign arc.

*Expert Grappler (Ex) :* Second tier in Improved Grab ability chain. A grell can take a -10 penalty, grappling witha singular tentacle and remain on ungrappled, rather than the -20 penalty offered by Improved Grab. Their +10 racial bonus to grapple checks is included in this ability suite. I figured that this ability sans the grapple bonus was worth a feat, but I couldn't calculate what the grapple bonus was worth for the life of me. I also noticed that the Grappl Bonus/ Penalty was not figured in the size values you gave in challenging Clhallenge Ratings v5.

*Paralysis (Ex) :* Functions as normal paralysis, but it requires a solid hit. Starts at DC 10. Multiple hits within the same round do not force multiple saves, but instead increase the DC by 1 for every hit beyond the initial strike. Save is Constitution based with a -4 racial penalty. I priced this ability slightly lower then a Ghoul's touch paralysis attack, but I'm unsure on this one.

*Sightless (Ex) :* Immune to gaze attacks, visual effects, illusions, and other attack forms that rely on sight. I figured that this ability was about on par with immunity to mind effects.

I'm afraid that I might have over-rated these abilities. While my results of a Silver Rule CR 8 pan out with what I expected to be an under rated creature, I believe I rated the Grell a tad too strongly.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 5, 2005)

Campbell said:
			
		

> Hey UK Mate,




Hey Campbell dude! 



			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> I've been attemptinting to calculate the CR of the Grell writeup in Lords of Madness, and was unsure how to calculate the value of a couple of their abilities.




I don't have that ability yet, but I'll take a look.



			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> Specifically Expert Grappler, their variant paralysis ability, and the sightless ability were troublesome factors. Specifics are below. Normally I'd be satisfied with some educated guesses, but I plan to make heavy use of Grells in an upcoming campaign arc.




Fire away.



			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> *Expert Grappler (Ex) :* Second tier in Improved Grab ability chain. A grell can take a -10 penalty, grappling witha singular tentacle and remain on ungrappled, rather than the -20 penalty offered by Improved Grab. Their +10 racial bonus to grapple checks is included in this ability suite. I figured that this ability sans the grapple bonus was worth a feat, but I couldn't calculate what the grapple bonus was worth for the life of me.




I would treat it as just another feat. The grapple bonus is essentially a skill bonus.



			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> I also noticed that the Grappl Bonus/ Penalty was not figured in the size values you gave in challenging Clhallenge Ratings v5.




Thats because Grapple and Hide cancel each other out.



			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> *Paralysis (Ex) :* Functions as normal paralysis, but it requires a solid hit. Starts at DC 10. Multiple hits within the same round do not force multiple saves, but instead increase the DC by 1 for every hit beyond the initial strike. Save is Constitution based with a -4 racial penalty. I priced this ability slightly lower then a Ghoul's touch paralysis attack, but I'm unsure on this one.




Very weak. Half the ghouls paralysis I would think.



			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> *Sightless (Ex) :* Immune to gaze attacks, visual effects, illusions, and other attack forms that rely on sight. I figured that this ability was about on par with immunity to mind effects.




No higher than +0.5 in total, if that. You are not really immune to illusions, as some might have sound and smell traits.

The simple test I use is asking myself: "Would you allow this as a feat?" If so its +0.2. Personally I see this as slightly too powerful for a feat, hence +0.5.



			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm afraid that I might have over-rated these abilities. While my results of a Silver Rule CR 8 pan out with what I expected to be an under rated creature, I believe I rated the Grell a tad too strongly.




Well if you still think you are having problems, list the details and we can see where any faults lie.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 5, 2005)

Hey there! 



			
				boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Well CR's break down in higher levels.




The official CRs you mean. 



			
				boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Enemy HP and defensive measures dont keep pace with damage dealing potential at high levels.




There are two dichotomies in D&D that reverse from low to high level.

At low level, AC > Attack Bonus, but Hp are proportionally low compared to Damage.

Whereas at high level, AC (roughly) = Attack Bonus, but Hp can soak up multiple attacks.

At epic level, AC < Attack Bonus, and Hp can soak up even more attacks.


----------



## boredgremlin (Jun 5, 2005)

This is one is the reasons i dont really like the higher levels of play. Trying to make a challenging but not devestating encounter is more luck then skill. Everything just becomes about who roles better on damage. Or wins initiative. I have only played one epic level game and it was probably the most boring game i have ever been in. Sometimes it really is best to just let a character retire and start something new.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jun 5, 2005)

boredgremlin said:
			
		

> This is one is the reasons i dont really like the higher levels of play. Trying to make a challenging but not devestating encounter is more luck then skill. Everything just becomes about who roles better on damage. Or wins initiative. I have only played one epic level game and it was probably the most boring game i have ever been in. Sometimes it really is best to just let a character retire and start something new.




Do you read any of the high-level story hours?  Jester's, Piratecat's, Sep's (link in my sig)... gfunk's also comes to mind.  Very entertaining (both to readers and players), and definitely epic.

If you don't, look around the story hour a while.  They start off mid to high level, and then go up, up, up.


----------



## boredgremlin (Jun 6, 2005)

Depends on what you like i guess. I had a player once who loved being able to destroy whatever he came across. When he DMed the stories were allways big world spanning epics that usually ended with players becoming either gods or immortals. Some people liked it. I would rather watch TV then play in a game like that, and i just cant muster up the interest to run one for the life of me. 

   For the adventures are about the feel of a regular person doing desparate risky things because they either have to be done or because there is a great reward. Like a good horror story its about constant danger and fear. Once players get too high level it become more about plotting and strategizing. Loses the horror story feel and becomes a high fantasy novel. Which while i like reading them i dont get the same good feeling from playing or running them. I like the drama and tension thats often lacking in higher level games.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 6, 2005)

Hey boredgremlin! 



			
				boredgremlin said:
			
		

> This is one is the reasons i dont really like the higher levels of play.




One bad experience has tainted you it seems. 



			
				boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Trying to make a challenging but not devestating encounter is more luck then skill.




Only using the official CR rules, not my CR rules. 



			
				boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Everything just becomes about who roles better on damage. Or wins initiative.




I've been playing in an epic campaign on and off for 17 years and I don't ever remember it being as simple as that. I mean wheres your politics, your strategy, the ramifications of your actions. In epic campaigns the world should shake.



			
				boredgremlin said:
			
		

> I have only played one epic level game and it was probably the most boring game i have ever been in.




Let me guess you just rolled up characters out of the blue? If so that was your first mistake, though a common one to be fair.

Like most roleplaying experiences you only get out what you put in.



			
				boredgremlin said:
			
		

> Sometimes it really is best to just let a character retire and start something new.




Sometimes perhaps, but not all the time. Successful epic gaming probably requires more player imagination than before. The players have to be the impetus behind their characters goals, less so the DM.


----------

