Challenging Challenge Ratings...again

[Kerrick]

Got another question. The example balor you use to illustrate how the CR modifiers all add up uses +0.4 for size (Large, before stat adjustments). Why? Wouldn't it use +1.4 (after adjustments)? What's the difference anyway? I mean I know stat adjustments add more CR, but why have "before" and "after" ratings?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Kerrick matey!

Got another question. The example balor you use to illustrate how the CR modifiers all add up uses +0.4 for size (Large, before stat adjustments). Why? Wouldn't it use +1.4 (after adjustments)? What's the difference anyway? I mean I know stat adjustments add more CR, but why have "before" and "after" ratings?

Its all about ability scores (if memory serves me correctly).

You see when you add 'Large' size, then you get +8 str (officially), +4 con and -2 dex (a net gain of +1 ECL).

However, the Balor is already Large, so if I accurately calculate its ability scores from the start I don't need to worry about this additional +1 ECL from being Large.

Hope that helps.

 

[Kerrick]

Its all about ability scores (if memory serves me correctly).

Yup.

You see when you add 'Large' size, then you get +8 str (officially), +4 con and -2 dex (a net gain of +1 ECL).

However, the Balor is already Large, so if I accurately calculate its ability scores from the start I don't need to worry about this additional +1 ECL from being Large.

Hope that helps. :wink:

That's what I thought you were doing. So... the "after" column only really applies for advancing monsters? Say, you have a Medium creature and add x HD so it becomes Large, so you apply the new ECL modifier for size?

Speaking of ECLs, is v6 going to be a strictly ECL-based system?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Apologies for the slow reply.

That's what I thought you were doing. So... the "after" column only really applies for advancing monsters? Say, you have a Medium creature and add x HD so it becomes Large, so you apply the new ECL modifier for size?

Correct.

Speaking of ECLs, is v6 going to be a strictly ECL-based system?

As opposed to what? A CR system? If so yes.

However, I am trying to wrangle a 4E way of working out encounters for 3E as an optional idea.

 

[Kerrick]

As opposed to what? A CR system? If so yes.

However, I am trying to wrangle a 4E way of working out encounters for 3E as an optional idea.

Sweet. Have you see Wulf's "XP budget for encounters" idea? It's somewhere in the RPG Rules forum; here's a link to Gneech's version of it for SWSE.

Another question: Does a dinosaur's pebbly hide count as tough skin or scales? It's kind of in between, so I was going to assign 2-3 + 1/3 HD for the natural armor bonus.

Also, what do you (or anyone else who happens to read this) think about reducing the number of feats assigned to a creature with Int 1-2? I'm going over the dinosaurs, and they have a crapton of feats - the designers didn't know what to give them, so they end up with stuff like Toughness x4. I think reducing their feats to half normal (1 + 1/6 HD) would fix this nicely (and if they need a couple extra, just give them bonus feats); unintelligent creatures get no feats at all, so it makes sense.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey kerrick matey!

Sweet. Have you see Wulf's "XP budget for encounters" idea? It's somewhere in the RPG Rules forum; here's a link to Gneech's version of it for SWSE.

I hadn't seen it, but I remember reading that Wulf was working on something like that, so if he already has that done, less point in me sorting it out.

Another question: Does a dinosaur's pebbly hide count as tough skin or scales? It's kind of in between, so I was going to assign 2-3 + 1/3 HD for the natural armor bonus.

Its a tough one, but as default I would probably say it counts as scales. If you wanted to be really exacting use 2-3 + 1/3 HD as you noted.

Also, what do you (or anyone else who happens to read this) think about reducing the number of feats assigned to a creature with Int 1-2? I'm going over the dinosaurs, and they have a crapton of feats - the designers didn't know what to give them, so they end up with stuff like Toughness x4. I think reducing their feats to half normal (1 + 1/6 HD) would fix this nicely (and if they need a couple extra, just give them bonus feats); unintelligent creatures get no feats at all, so it makes sense.

Well this has already been avoided for 4E.

I think anything that limits the number of feats in 3E is a good thing, especially for NPCs. What you could also do is give them a maximum number of feats equal to their intelligence.

 

[Kerrick]

I hadn't seen it, but I remember reading that Wulf was working on something like that, so if he already has that done, less point in me sorting it out.

Yup yup.

Its a tough one, but as default I would probably say it counts as scales. If you wanted to be really exacting use 2-3 + 1/3 HD as you noted.

Yeah, I was leaning toward scales too, but it's not quite as tough. The MM has "tough hide" listed separately, so I'll stick with the 2-3 + 1/3. It seems to work well enough.

I think anything that limits the number of feats in 3E is a good thing, especially for NPCs. What you could also do is give them a maximum number of feats equal to their intelligence.

That'll work better than my idea, I think - it's certainly easier to remember and work with, and I can give most animals 2 feats without having to make one a bonus feat. It certainly scales better, for things that have 3-4 Int.

People complain about not having enough feats, but I think the problem is that we don't have enough choices - the range of feats in the PHB just sucks, especially when you ditch the +2/+2 feats.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

The number and quality of feats depends on your sourcebooks; If you use some of that Savage Species and Drachonomicon stuff with epic creatures, things can get out of hand real fast. Heck, back when I was in 3E-stat-everything-mode I continuously found that there were just some feats you would be crazy not to have as a monsterous creature. It just became Feats 1-35, then the rest of the feats split between the "great-[attribute]" feats, Epic Potency and that epic feat that added 1 BaB. Naturally, the "feats" section of the higher-level stat blocks were a tangled mess. (and you can forget that alphabetical order stuff; no way)
Limiting the feats to about 30 or so would save a lot of sanity.
Alternately (as a DM) you can come up with the "fighter-suite" and the "caster-suite" of feats, and instead of assigning feats 30 times to 30 different monsters, come up with 2-4 general lists to suit your needs. Magic using Dragon? Caster-Suite. Melee monster? Give'em fighter powers. This also gets a little crazy when you run out of action adding feats or situational bonuses.

 

[Kerrick]

The number and quality of feats depends on your sourcebooks; If you use some of that Savage Species and Drachonomicon stuff with epic creatures, things can get out of hand real fast. Heck, back when I was in 3E-stat-everything-mode I continuously found that there were just some feats you would be crazy not to have as a monsterous creature. It just became Feats 1-35, then the rest of the feats split between the "great-[attribute]" feats, Epic Potency and that epic feat that added 1 BaB. Naturally, the "feats" section of the higher-level stat blocks were a tangled mess. (and you can forget that alphabetical order stuff; no way)

True, but I'm talking about core books only - that's all I can work with for now, plus whatever I come up with on my own.

Since we're on the subject of epic monsters... what do you think about having monsters follow EAB/EAS rules like PCs? It would certainly curb their rampant ABs, which quickly outscale the ACs... same with saves. I've gone to using 10 + 1/2 caster level + spell level for spell DCs, which should help a bit, but still... I think it'll help prevent the "use a spell that goes against its weak save" thing and make other spells remain viable at high levels.

[quoteLimiting the feats to about 30 or so would save a lot of sanity.
Alternately (as a DM) you can come up with the "fighter-suite" and the "caster-suite" of feats, and instead of assigning feats 30 times to 30 different monsters, come up with 2-4 general lists to suit your needs. Magic using Dragon? Caster-Suite. Melee monster? Give'em fighter powers. This also gets a little crazy when you run out of action adding feats or situational bonuses.[/QUOTE]
Using a "suite" of set feats is a good idea.

 

[Kerrick]

UK: I've been working on dragons for the better part of the last week (a few hours at a time here and there) and I've found out a few things. I was playing around with the ACs, trying to get them to a nice progression (to fit everything else, since everything scales), using 10 + size + NA (3-4 + 1/2 HD)+ age category, and I discovered that:

The sizes they have listed for dragons are not all correct. I had to tweak a few to get them to fit properly - for example, great wyrm gold, red, and silver dragons (40+ HD) are Titanic, not Colossal.

Your natural armor bonuses based on size are off. I was banging my head on the desk, trying to figure out why some ACs worked and some didn't, and then I tried changing the NA size mods - and they all fell into place.

What they should be: Large: +3, Huge +5, Gargantuan +8, Colossal +13, Titanic +18, etc. Basically, it's the size mod (-1, -2, -4, -8) * (-1) + 2, 3, 4, etc.

A dragon's AC should be HD + 11. I didn't discover this until I was halfway through adjusting for the new size mods, but after that, it made things a lot easier and enabled me to see that some of the sizes were indeed off (and helped me prove that golds, reds, and silvers were indeed size Ti - I couldn't believe it myself).


And finally... I decided to try this out on one of your dragons. I chose the Platinum because it was the first one I found that was semi-normal. What I came up with...

HD increase by +5 (starting at 29), not +6.

The size progression goes C, C, C, Ti, Ti, MF, MF, MD, MD, MT, MT, MS.

The deflection and divine bonuses are correct - the end ACs start at HD + 16 and increase by +1/HD.