Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Publisher Forums
Eternity Publishing Hosted Forum
Challenging Challenge Ratings...again
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JuzamDjinn" data-source="post: 3893447" data-attributes="member: 20370"><p>HI U_K,</p><p></p><p>I'm trying to figure out your "Make Challenge Rating 2/3rds Effective Class Level" solution, but it's not making a lot of sense to me. First, I do think it's based on some false assumptions. I don't think that WOTC makes the assumption that "Challenge Rating parallels Effective Class Level on a 1:1 basis " For example, a level 5 human fighter is ECL 5 and CR 5. But a level 5 drow fighter is ECL 7 but CR 6, because drow is +1 CR and +2 ECL (because it's LA 2), so we can see in this case that CR and ECL are are not 1:1 by the official rules. </p><p></p><p>But even igoring that, I'm trying to following some of your examples. You have "Firstly, that Challenge Rating parallels Effective Class Level on a 1:1 basis - which simply isn't the case. This discrepancy is easily illustrated when you contrast a 20th-level PC with a CR 20 monster like a Balor. The Balor is much tougher." </p><p></p><p>I would say, that if a CR 20 Balor is a tougher challenge to a balanced party than a level 20 PC with PC wealth, it means that the CR of the Balor is wrong. In fact, I would probably put the Balor CR at about 22 rather than 20, making a Balor equal in challenge to a 22nd level PC with PC wealth. </p><p></p><p>But what you've done is, you've changed the definition of CR. Which is not necessarily a bad thing--you've given a definition of EL which might not quite correspond to the WOTC definintion, but which creates a useful distinction. But I'm not sure how you changing how CR is defined is helpful--it only further muddles what is already an overcomplicated issue. </p><p></p><p>You've basically adjusted the meaning of CR with the following formula you've used elsewhere:</p><p></p><p>"</p><p>• Challenge Rating is 1/2 Average Party Level = Encounter Level -3 = Easy </p><p>• Challenge Rating is 2/3 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +/-0 = Moderate </p><p>• Challenge Rating is x1 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +3 = Tough </p><p>• Challenge Rating is x1.5 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +6 = Very Tough </p><p>• Challenge Rating is x2 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +9 = Impossible </p><p></p><p>e.g. Challenge Rating 20 (Balor) is 2/3 Average Party Level for a party of four ECL 30 PCs. Therefore the Balor will be EL -3 (or in this case EL 27).</p><p></p><p>...Now, another minor complication is that, the official rules state that a CR 20 monster is EL 20 AND a 20th-level NPC is also EL 20. With this new system (and assuming a 20th-level PC party) the 20th-level NPC would only be EL 18 (two less because of the conversion between ECL and CR). This means four such 20th-level PCs would only EL 22. Therefore EL 22 (in this case) must be EL +4 above the party average. Which means that a single monster of a CR equal to the party average will represent a tough encounter rather than simply a moderate one."</p><p></p><p>But, the definition of CR, and all of the CRs assigned by WOTC, are built under the assumption that, CR X means that 4 level X PCs against a monster of CR X will be having a moderate encounter (or "easy", if you want to call it that). They assume that if you are EL+2 above that (EL 2 above CR X), then it is a tough encounter. But you instead use the definition that CR X means that 4 level X PCs against a monster of CR X will be having a tough encounter, and that CR X*(2/3) will be a moderate encounter. </p><p></p><p>So it seems like what you're doing is defining ECL as what WOTC would mean by CR, and then defining for yourself a new CR which is defined by an adjustment you've created, so that now CR X is a tough encounter for 4 level X PCs, and CR X*(2/3) is the moderate encounter. </p><p></p><p>I would suggest simply sticking to the definition of CR X means that 4 level X PCs (assuming the PCs have no LA) will be having a moderate (easy) encounter, and that a CR X creature is an equal challenge to a level X PC (with no LA) with PC wealth, and correct the CR of any creature accordingly to meet that definition. Because it's easier to just say that a level 30 character (with no LA) with level 30 PC wealth is a CR 30 opponent. It's much more intuitive.</p><p></p><p>It also makes things easier in that, your CR will mean the same thing as WOTC's CR if you don't change the definition the way you have. If you want to create a new quantity that is similar to CR but that meets the definition you have proposed, I would suggest creating a new term for it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JuzamDjinn, post: 3893447, member: 20370"] HI U_K, I'm trying to figure out your "Make Challenge Rating 2/3rds Effective Class Level" solution, but it's not making a lot of sense to me. First, I do think it's based on some false assumptions. I don't think that WOTC makes the assumption that "Challenge Rating parallels Effective Class Level on a 1:1 basis " For example, a level 5 human fighter is ECL 5 and CR 5. But a level 5 drow fighter is ECL 7 but CR 6, because drow is +1 CR and +2 ECL (because it's LA 2), so we can see in this case that CR and ECL are are not 1:1 by the official rules. But even igoring that, I'm trying to following some of your examples. You have "Firstly, that Challenge Rating parallels Effective Class Level on a 1:1 basis - which simply isn't the case. This discrepancy is easily illustrated when you contrast a 20th-level PC with a CR 20 monster like a Balor. The Balor is much tougher." I would say, that if a CR 20 Balor is a tougher challenge to a balanced party than a level 20 PC with PC wealth, it means that the CR of the Balor is wrong. In fact, I would probably put the Balor CR at about 22 rather than 20, making a Balor equal in challenge to a 22nd level PC with PC wealth. But what you've done is, you've changed the definition of CR. Which is not necessarily a bad thing--you've given a definition of EL which might not quite correspond to the WOTC definintion, but which creates a useful distinction. But I'm not sure how you changing how CR is defined is helpful--it only further muddles what is already an overcomplicated issue. You've basically adjusted the meaning of CR with the following formula you've used elsewhere: " • Challenge Rating is 1/2 Average Party Level = Encounter Level -3 = Easy • Challenge Rating is 2/3 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +/-0 = Moderate • Challenge Rating is x1 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +3 = Tough • Challenge Rating is x1.5 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +6 = Very Tough • Challenge Rating is x2 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +9 = Impossible e.g. Challenge Rating 20 (Balor) is 2/3 Average Party Level for a party of four ECL 30 PCs. Therefore the Balor will be EL -3 (or in this case EL 27). ...Now, another minor complication is that, the official rules state that a CR 20 monster is EL 20 AND a 20th-level NPC is also EL 20. With this new system (and assuming a 20th-level PC party) the 20th-level NPC would only be EL 18 (two less because of the conversion between ECL and CR). This means four such 20th-level PCs would only EL 22. Therefore EL 22 (in this case) must be EL +4 above the party average. Which means that a single monster of a CR equal to the party average will represent a tough encounter rather than simply a moderate one." But, the definition of CR, and all of the CRs assigned by WOTC, are built under the assumption that, CR X means that 4 level X PCs against a monster of CR X will be having a moderate encounter (or "easy", if you want to call it that). They assume that if you are EL+2 above that (EL 2 above CR X), then it is a tough encounter. But you instead use the definition that CR X means that 4 level X PCs against a monster of CR X will be having a tough encounter, and that CR X*(2/3) will be a moderate encounter. So it seems like what you're doing is defining ECL as what WOTC would mean by CR, and then defining for yourself a new CR which is defined by an adjustment you've created, so that now CR X is a tough encounter for 4 level X PCs, and CR X*(2/3) is the moderate encounter. I would suggest simply sticking to the definition of CR X means that 4 level X PCs (assuming the PCs have no LA) will be having a moderate (easy) encounter, and that a CR X creature is an equal challenge to a level X PC (with no LA) with PC wealth, and correct the CR of any creature accordingly to meet that definition. Because it's easier to just say that a level 30 character (with no LA) with level 30 PC wealth is a CR 30 opponent. It's much more intuitive. It also makes things easier in that, your CR will mean the same thing as WOTC's CR if you don't change the definition the way you have. If you want to create a new quantity that is similar to CR but that meets the definition you have proposed, I would suggest creating a new term for it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Publisher Forums
Eternity Publishing Hosted Forum
Challenging Challenge Ratings...again
Top