Search results

Ah yes. Those plucky WotC designers... They do mean well. ----- Ed: "There's a section on setting target challenge ratings for new monsters and material on how to consider CRs for advanced monsters. We talk about how to playtest a CR and we also talk about how adding a class level to your...

Wow. So much new information to deal with. First of all, I believe the equation that Anubis pulled out of his hat (CR-2 = EL/4) is worth embracing. That's right. It's appears to be a good, clean solution. I can't stand arbitrary solutions any more than the next poster on this board. This new...

Anubis. As I originally stated (2 or 3 pages ago now), I factored in wealth "to be fair". Without wealth, the case for my goblin and kobold CR values is made even stronger still. My proof has been in the pudding since the beginning. I can't help it if you don't like pudding. :p

Upper Krust. Now let's get back to that *slightly different rule set* I just mentioned to account for negative Challenge Ratings (before Anubis has a synaptic meltdown in his next reply). Here goes. CR 0.66(R) = CR 2/3 = EL 0 CR 0.50 = CR 1/2 = EL -1 CR 0.25 = CR 1/4 = EL -2 CR 0 = CR 0 = EL...

Anubis. Of course. Nobody said otherwise. But what you successfully glaze over is that both gnomes and halflings come with a *host* of racial abilities, which far outweigh the racial abilities of both goblins and kobolds (who have a few meager situational bonuses at best). When it comes to these...

Directly. In the most simple and straightforward way imaginable. When you translate a CR 0.3 creature into a fractional CR, you get a CR 3/10 creature. Now because you always round CR down, rounding down fractional Challenge Ratings is no different. The two closest fractional CR increments are...

Where goblins and every other creature between CR 0 and CR 1 are concerned, the fractional solution seems to favor increments of either 1/4 or 1/3. Upper Krust. I know we both dislike the messy 1/3 fractional solution, so what about this... CR 1 = EL 1 CR 3/4 = EL 0 CR 1/2 = EL -1 CR 1/4 = EL...

Howdy Upper_Krust. I agree. Splitting it into three is the most untidy solution. I think the quartering rule works better, but, once again, this is dependant on whether or not you count features like Size "specifically" as as racial abilities. Below you say... ...which still isn't very clear...

Howdy Upper_Krust. You see, that's what I thought. I have no idea what Anubis thinks he's going on about. All right then, solution or no, it's the best idea for rating lower level encounters so far (especially Challenge Ratings that fall between 0 and 0.9. Okay, using this solution, however...

Howdy Upper_Krust. I asked for your clarification on this matter earlier, but I believe your computer was down at the time. As I understand your latest solution (not the one you related a few weeks ago), there would be no negative CR scores. All CR scores would be expressed as fractions, and...

Anubis. Your most telling statement yet. So you *just* studied the numbers for the first time? Here's some advice for you Anubis ... do that more in the future before expressing your spontaneous opinions. It might save you some added embarrassment. I won't even say that much. In the same way...

And this is where you gut yourself. The current system being discussed goes as follows... So if CR 1 = EL 1 CR 2/3 = EL 0 CR 1/2 = EL -1 CR 1/3 = EL -2 CR 1/4 or 1/5 = EL -3 CR 1/6 or 1/7 = EL -4 CR 1/8 to 1/11 = EL -5 CR 1/12 to 1/15 = EL -6 CR 1/16 to CR 1/23 = EL -7 You even quoted this...

And that is why your idea of playtesting counts for shinola. Thanks for making it even more obvious. Even Upper_Krust has repeatedly admitted that XP awards are inflated at lower levels using his system. A solution has since been created to solve that problem; one which has clearly flown over...

Anubis. No. Demiurgeastaroth and I the only two people who have successfully identified, isolated, and illuminated the problem with exaggerated lower level XP awards (not to mention help Upper_Krust find the solution). While you're asking to see the proof again, the proof has already been...

Howdy demiurgeastaroth. No offense taken. If bombastic is the worst I've been, then I really have been biting my tongue. ;) ----- Anubis. Where is this proof? Saying there is proof and providing that proof are two different things. If your proof is so rock solid, as you seem to be claiming...

Upper Krust. You have thrown your weight around before ... and it was warranted. In this case, however, it isn't. If you don't like the way Anubis and Eldorian post, then quote their replies. Don't quote mine. That's twice you've quoted me when addressing a group of people. Anubis in particular...

You are so funny. Where is this proof you keep talking about? I love it. You consistently defer to Upper_Krust's calculations, and throw around the word "mathematical" like it's going out of style ... but with no substance. Well, here's your chance to prove yourself Anubis. Upper_Krust's...

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

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

Which is exactly why whole numbers don't do the trick (when it comes to accurately representing the fodder-to-nemesis spectrum for low level encounters). ----- ...or a long convoluted way of saying that we were right all along (without actually admitting it). :D