Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 9009531" data-attributes="member: 83242">Well like I said, the DMG advice is very scant. It says they need to be accounted for, but not how:[ATTACH=full]283411[/ATTACH]Regarding how WotC does it, it was post #47 above.  However, the original source was a podcast with Jeremey Crawford. The link on Blog of Holding no longer works, but Paul summarizes it here:"In the podcast, Jeremy Crawford talked about how the D&D team approaches what he calls “action denial” attacks: paralysis, charm, etc. This is something I’ve wondered about. My initial research suggested that these attacks didn’t have much of an effect on CR, which I though was strange: taking out a combatant for a few turns seems like it should be a powerful ability.Jeremy used paralysis as an example to illustrate the team’s approach. First, find the lowest-level spell which inflicts a condition. For paralysis, that’s Hold Person. Next, you translate that into damage by finding the damage output of the simplest pure-damage spell of that level. Hold Person is level 2, and its comparable damage spell is Scorching Ray, which does 6d6 (21) damage. Thus, the ability to paralyze is worth 21 “virtual” damage for Challenge Rating calculation purposes."This is a similar approach to what I have done for years when determining spell impacts on CR except I use the DMG spell damage table. Unfortunately that seems to give you a lower value (16 virtual damage).EDIT: If you read Paul's analysis in that article, you see that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of how to apply the DMG guidelines. His analysis determines WotC doesn't do what they are saying; however, when I run the numbers through the DMG guide, they match up. They do account for paralysis as Jeremey said (I checked through the mummy - they all match the CR produced by the DMG guidelines and assume 21 damage for paralysis with the exception of the carrion crawler and I believe that is explained by its unusually high attack bonus).</blockquote>

Verification