Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 2720766" data-attributes="member: 141">I'm probably in the wrong IH thread, but I was thinking about Upper_Krust's CR numbers.&nbsp; What's he's taken to calling ECL to distinguish them from WotC's numbers.They are really quite brilliant.&nbsp; Even the mistakes are brilliant.Remember that he recently concluded that he overvalued feats (they should be one sixth of an ECL instead of one fifth) and undervalued PC wealth (which should be one third of an ECL instead of one fifth).&nbsp; Net result is that the average PC level is worth about the same (maybe 1.14 instead of 1.17) but monsters are a little overvalued, since they are built out of feat equivalents and don't have PC wealth.But notice what happens if you take an ECL 10 monster and make it into a PC character.&nbsp; Multiply by 5/6 to account for the discounted value of feats.&nbsp; That's 8.33&nbsp; Give it PC treasure for a 10th level character.&nbsp; +3.3&nbsp; That's 11.63, virtually the same as a 10th level PC.&nbsp; (2% over, but I'm sure there is something I am failing to calculate...)In other words, the &quot;golden rule&quot; numbers given in v4 or v5 of the IH appendix are perfect for using monsters as PCs.&nbsp; Even though Upper_Krust used a mistaken value for feats to arrive at them.&nbsp; Calling them ECLs is an utterly appropriate fix.There *is* one issue that I am still wrapping my mind around.&nbsp; That is that a player character with one of the standard classes and standard wealth will be equivalent to a monster almost 40% higher (37% actually) without equipment.&nbsp; If you had to bet on an 11th level charcter vs an ECL 15 monster, the odds should be just about even as to who would prevail.&nbsp; Which means that a character has excellent chances against a monster of equal ECL.&nbsp; Unless the monster has a tactical advantage (say it is a great grappler whose low ECL is based on its vulnerability to ranged attacks, and the PC is a close combat fighter.&nbsp; Or if it has an ability that targets the PCs weak save.&nbsp; Or something).I think this is a feature, though, not a bug.&nbsp; My CHI/RHO method uses the sum of squares method to determine the power of each side in a combat.&nbsp; I use UK's numbers for the monsters, and character levels for the PCs.&nbsp; In light of this analysis an &quot;equal encounter&quot; where CHI=RHO actually indicates that the odds are tilted fairly heavily in the PCs favor.&nbsp; Which is actually quite appropriate.&nbsp; You want the PCs to win against overwhelming odds more often than not, and the intrinsic pro-PC spin in the CHI/RHO equation makes this happen; even if CHI is twice RHO (ECL 15 monster vs CL 11 PC) the PC has almost even odds.Anyways,&nbsp; I just wanted to praise UK instead of criticizing him for the IH delays.&nbsp; It may take time for him to get something absolutely right, but it is generally worth the wait.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cheiromancer, post: 2720766, member: 141"] I'm probably in the wrong IH thread, but I was thinking about Upper_Krust's CR numbers. What's he's taken to calling ECL to distinguish them from WotC's numbers. They are really quite brilliant. Even the mistakes are brilliant. Remember that he recently concluded that he overvalued feats (they should be one sixth of an ECL instead of one fifth) and undervalued PC wealth (which should be one third of an ECL instead of one fifth). Net result is that the average PC level is worth about the same (maybe 1.14 instead of 1.17) but monsters are a little overvalued, since they are built out of feat equivalents and don't have PC wealth. But notice what happens if you take an ECL 10 monster and make it into a PC character. Multiply by 5/6 to account for the discounted value of feats. That's 8.33 Give it PC treasure for a 10th level character. +3.3 That's 11.63, virtually the same as a 10th level PC. (2% over, but I'm sure there is something I am failing to calculate...) In other words, the "golden rule" numbers given in v4 or v5 of the IH appendix are perfect for using monsters as PCs. Even though Upper_Krust used a mistaken value for feats to arrive at them. Calling them ECLs is an utterly appropriate fix. There *is* one issue that I am still wrapping my mind around. That is that a player character with one of the standard classes and standard wealth will be equivalent to a monster almost 40% higher (37% actually) without equipment. If you had to bet on an 11th level charcter vs an ECL 15 monster, the odds should be just about even as to who would prevail. Which means that a character has excellent chances against a monster of equal ECL. Unless the monster has a tactical advantage (say it is a great grappler whose low ECL is based on its vulnerability to ranged attacks, and the PC is a close combat fighter. Or if it has an ability that targets the PCs weak save. Or something). I think this is a feature, though, not a bug. My CHI/RHO method uses the sum of squares method to determine the power of each side in a combat. I use UK's numbers for the monsters, and character levels for the PCs. In light of this analysis an "equal encounter" where CHI=RHO actually indicates that the odds are tilted fairly heavily in the PCs favor. Which is actually quite appropriate. You want the PCs to win against overwhelming odds more often than not, and the intrinsic pro-PC spin in the CHI/RHO equation makes this happen; even if CHI is twice RHO (ECL 15 monster vs CL 11 PC) the PC has almost even odds. Anyways, I just wanted to praise UK instead of criticizing him for the IH delays. It may take time for him to get something absolutely right, but it is generally worth the wait. [/QUOTE]

Verification