• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Challenging Challenge Ratings...again

JuzamDjinn

First Post
Upper_Krust said:
Hey all! :)

Been a bit busy on the Ascension art as well as prepping a week of website updates in honour of the Bestiary launch.

But thats not what I want to talk about, I have been involved in a discussion on challenge rating over at dicefreaks this past week...

http://community.dicefreaks.com/viewtopic.php?t=7506

Maybe talking through some of the stuff will help me get a better handle of it.

The initial question is what CR is the Infernal (from the ELH).

Going over the stats, version 6 (in its current incarnation) suggests ECL 55 which means CR 37. That of course means that it would be an EASY encounter for a 37th-level Party. If we increase the EL so that the Infernal uses (roughly) 25% of the party's resources, it would be CR 24 (two-thirds of 37).

Up to this point, everything looks rosy.

Why is that rosy? If it's ECL 55/CR 37, against a level 37 party, it's a tough encounter, not easy.

You said, "If we increase the EL so that the Infernal uses (roughly) 25% of the party's resources, it would be CR 24 (two-thirds of 37)." Did you mean *decrease*? Against an ECL 37/CR 24 creature (v6 parlance), that would be expected to use about 20-25% of the (level 37) party's resources. So that part looks correct. If we make the infernal less powerful (assuming that your initial estimate of ECL 55/ECL 37 was correct in the first place), if you make the Infernal less powerful, so that it only uses up about 20-25% of the party's resources, then this less powerful Infernal is only ECL 37/CR 24 (v6 parlance).

Upper_Krust said:
However, what the above is suggesting is that a 55th-level character (with PC wealth no less) will only use 25% of a 24th-level Party's resources.

I don't think that statement follows. A level 55 character would, in v6 parlance, be ECL 55/CR 37. It's the ECL 37/CR 24 encounter (v6) that will only use 20-25% of a level 37th level party's resources. If a level 24 party is up against a 55th-level character (with PC wealth), then they're a level 24 party up against an ECL 55/CR 37. That would be in the ballpark of "Challenge Rating is x1.5 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +6 = Very Tough", which would anticipate the party using at or near 100% of their resources.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JuzamDjinn said:

Hey there JuzamDjinn! :)

Challenging ratings are tough to get right. I hope fourth edition will be superior, but I'm not holding my breath and may very well stick with 3.X. Only time will tell. I'm certainly not going to proceed with the assumption that 4th ed will necessarily fix everything. But hopefully you will U_K :lol: !

If they don't, I will. But 4E looks to have it solved...so far.

I love what you've done with challenge ratings. I may nitpick some of the things you've done, but even if I disagree with some points, certainly I commend you on doing something that no one else has done, and making some significant improvments on how CR works for higher level characters.

Thanks. :)

I guess my main question still though is that I still don't understand why you've done what you've done recently with your ECL CR split and CR equals 2/3 of ECL. I think it's a mistake. I think that ECL should not be used for opponents at all--only used for party members. I think that CRs should be used for monsters, that that CR X should represent, "this creature would be an equal challenge to a well-balanced party of adventures of level X as an NPC of level X with wealth of a PC of level X would, and this creature would be a moderate(easy) challenge to a well-balanced party of 4 level X PCs" [I'll call this tcwbaectawbpofolxaanolxwwoapflxwatwbamectawbpo4l4x with X=20]. This is basically your definition of ECL now, but I think it's better off if you make that definition of CR, because that's basically how everybody else defines CR.

Everybody defines CR the same way, they just don't always get it right (and I include myself in that too).

Basically, when the official rules say something is CR 20, they mean tcwbaectawbpofolxaanolxwwoapflxwatwbamectawbpo4l4x with X=20. But when you say something is CR 20/ECL 30, you mean tcwbaectawbpofolxaanolxwwoapflxwatwbamectawbpo4l4x with X=30.

:confused:

I do think you have an excellent point when you say that PC classes are not necessarily balanced, and a discrepancy of 40% is not that suprising either, especially at higher levels, where the discrepancy probably gets even more pronounced. For playtesting purposes, if you want to determine whether a given monster is an equal challenge to a level X NPC, I think that a psychic warrior (XPH rules) is the ideal test point. So, let's say that I want to propose that a given monster would be about an equal challenge as a level 22 NPC with PC wealth. So, to playtest this, I would put a playtest group of one fighter, one rogue, one wizard, and one cleric against the monster. Then put the playtest group up against a level 22 psychic warrior NPC with level 22 PC wealth. If it's about an equal challenge as the monster, then we can conclude that the monster is about an equal challenge as a level 22 NPC with PC wealth, which would equate to 22 ECL in your system, or a 22 CR by the official rules.

Why psychic warrior? Well, some classes aren't good for testing purposes versus a party, because they're support classes, not really meant for soloing. A class that has options, and which we could consider as a reasonable possibility for solo fighting, would be ideal (for purposes of playtesting CR). The main classes that come to mind for this are cleric, druid, and psychic warrior. But we also want a class that is neither overpowered or underpowered, which would skew the results. Many consider the cleric and druid to be overpowered. Psychic Warrior I see as a good balance as being neither underpowered (e.g. fighter, bard) or overpowered (e.g. cleric, druid).

Well I don't own the XPH so that rules that out. But I understand the point you are making about certain classes.

But that was a digression from the main topic. I still don't understand the point of CR=ECL*2/3. In explaining your reasons for doing this, you said, "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." If that's really true, wouldn't it make more sense just to say that the Balor's supposed CR of 20 is wrong, rather than to say that CR=ECL*2/3.

Either way represents a change. Its much easier to revise WotC ECLs than to revise all WotC CRs.

Because now you changed the definition of what CR means.

Changed yes, but changed back to their original meanings, albeit there is a problem going from 1 character to 4 characters.

To everybody else, CR means, "this creature would be an equal challenge to a well-balanced party of adventures of level X as an NPC of level X with wealth of a PC of level X would, and this creature would be a moderate (easy) challenge to a well-balanced party of 4 level X PCs". But instead, you've given that as the definition of ECL, and have defined CR to be 2/3 of ECL.

The complication in this instance is that one monster is really half its ECL in terms of CR, since doubling the number of opponents is x1.5

And your EL system compensates for that. Because your table now reads, in v6, with CR=(2/3)*ECL:

• 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

That's again the v6 version, where CR=(2/3)*ECL. That's a change from the old system, in the official system and your v5, which used to have a baseline of: Challenge Rating is x1 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +/-0 = Moderate. But you only had to make that shift because you multiplied by CR by 2/3.



So it looks like you multiplied by 2/3 to match your CR closer to the official CRs. But then you changed the definition of CR!

So here's what you've basically done. You've said. Hmm, my system, before the change, tells me that Balor is CR 30, i.e., about an equal challenge as a level 30 character with PC wealth==ECL 30. But the offical rules say the Balor is CR 20, and everybody wants to know why my CR is so different from the official rules. I know!! Let's define CR=(2/3)*ECL! Now a Balor has a CR of 20! Everything's the same! But now you have to shift the EL table. And now you've changed the definition of CR when you didn't have to. You should just keep CR the same, keep the EL table the same, and correct the CRs, if they need correcting.

The alternative is to revise every WotC CR! Not only does that confuse everyone, it takes a hell of a long time to convert large numbers of monsters.

And if you think that a tough encounter is a better standard as a typical enounter, you don't have to re-define CR; you can instead just state that the DM should aim for "tough" encounter (EL+3 or whatever that turns out to be) rather than aiming for a "moderate" encounter of EL +/- 0.

A second question is, how thoroughly have you playtested CR*2=EL+6? I would submit that, at CR 25 or higher, you might find that something like CR*2=EL+8, or even a little more than 8 possibly, is a little closer. You already had a "glaring error" in your initial assumption that CR*2=EL+4 was wrong. But could you be making another error in assuming that CR*2=EL+6 is necessarily right?

Could well be, due to the classes used. Even using a 4 strong party with the four main classes will prove ineffective because two of those classes are about 33% or so down on the others.

So CR*2=EL+8 could well be correct, assuming you used revised classes (or certainly classes like the wizard and cleric).

Again, I'm nitpicking what I think may be errors in your current systems, but props on what you've done so far on challenging challenge ratings (not to mention everything else)!

Thanks for the feedback.
 

JuzamDjinn

First Post
Hi U_K!

I don't understand how you can say that, "Everybody defines CR the same way." How do you define CR?

The official rules basically define CR as: "this creature would be an equal challenge to a well-balanced party of adventures of level X as an NPC of level X with wealth of a PC of level X would, and this creature would be a moderate(easy) challenge to a well-balanced party of 4 level X PCs--and a moderate(easy) challenge is expected to use about 20% of the party's resources".

You define CR as being exactly 2/3 of this official definition of CR.

Further, to make up for this 2/3 adjustment, you need to shift the CR/EL matchup, so that instead of "Challenge Rating is x1 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +/-0 = Moderate ", you have "Challenge Rating is x1 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +3 = Tough", a shift that you only needed to make to account for your re-definition of CR as being 2/3 of what it would be under the official definition.

But I could be missing something. Could you explain to me how your definition of CR is the same the official definition of CR? It still seems to me that, based on your definition of CR, you would have to multiply the WOTC CR by 2/3 to get to your CR (as you define it), or multiply your CR by 3/2 to get the WOTC CR.
 

JuzamDjinn said:

Hey JuzamDjinn! :)

JuzamDjinn said:
I don't understand how you can say that, "Everybody defines CR the same way." How do you define CR?

The official rules basically define CR as: "this creature would be an equal challenge to a well-balanced party of adventures of level X as an NPC of level X with wealth of a PC of level X would, and this creature would be a moderate(easy) challenge to a well-balanced party of 4 level X PCs--and a moderate(easy) challenge is expected to use about 20% of the party's resources".

You define CR as being exactly 2/3 of this official definition of CR.

No. I define CR as 2/3rds ECL.

JuzamDjinn said:
Further, to make up for this 2/3 adjustment, you need to shift the CR/EL matchup, so that instead of "Challenge Rating is x1 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +/-0 = Moderate ", you have "Challenge Rating is x1 Average Party Level = Encounter Level +3 = Tough", a shift that you only needed to make to account for your re-definition of CR as being 2/3 of what it would be under the official definition.

But I could be missing something. Could you explain to me how your definition of CR is the same the official definition of CR? It still seems to me that, based on your definition of CR, you would have to multiply the WOTC CR by 2/3 to get to your CR (as you define it), or multiply your CR by 3/2 to get the WOTC CR.

Okay, the problem arises because of the dichotomy between NPC Classes and Monsters. This poses the question "What is a moderate encounter?"

Is it equal to one character of level X against the 4 PCs of Level X? If so, then moderate means weak.

Buts its just another level of confusion that makes me look forward to 4th Edition.
 

JuzamDjinn

First Post
Well, the main point I'm trying to make is:

According to the official definition of CR, if a creature is CR 20, that means that the creature is equivalent in challenge to a party as a level 20 NPC (with 20 levels of PC wealth) would be to the party.

According to your definitions, that creature would be ECL 20/CR 13.
 

Howdy JuzamDjinn! :)

JuzamDjinn said:
Well, the main point I'm trying to make is:

According to the official definition of CR, if a creature is CR 20, that means that the creature is equivalent in challenge to a party as a level 20 NPC (with 20 levels of PC wealth) would be to the party.

According to your definitions, that creature would be ECL 20/CR 13.

Not necessarily.

eg. a Balor is ECL 30/CR 20*...and its official WotC CR is 20.

*I should note thats not the v6 ECL/CR.

The problem is in defining what moderate means and by association what Challenge Rating is.

I personally see moderate as a 1:4 ratio (ie. 4 Level 20 PCs fighting a Level 20 NPC - albeit one with PC equipment).

But under that criteria moderate is actually an easy fight then. Which is why I suggest on the website you use what I call a tough encounter (ie. 4 Level 20 PCs fighting two Level 20 NPCs - with PC equipment, or a single Level 26 NPC - again with PC equipment).

Likewise most WotC CRs (with monsters) set up tough encounters, while most WotC CRs (with NPCs) set up moderate or weaker* encounters.

*I say weaker because they almost always have inferior wealth as well.
 

Kerrick

First Post
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.
Agreed. I'm not sure where you're getting this CR = 2/3 ECL thing either.

I guess my main question still though is that I still don't understand why you've done what you've done recently with your ECL CR split and CR equals 2/3 of ECL. I think it's a mistake. I think that ECL should not be used for opponents at all--only used for party members. I think that CRs should be used for monsters...
Again, I agree. You're adding too many variable into the equation, and that's what's clouding things. If you have a PC with add-ons (templates, racial abilities, or whatever), that's an LA. Class level + LA = ECL. ECL = CR.

Creatures are not PCs - their abilities are already factored into their CRs, and therefore they don't get an ECL. Now, if you have a monster with class levels, THAT would require an LA, since you're combining racial abilites and class levels. But your random beastie? No.


Well I don't own the XPH so that rules that out.
Dude, they're OGC: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/classes/psychicWarrior.htm


Okay, here are my thoughts on the issue... (And I know you already know a good bit of this, but bear with me - I'm going through the process I'd use. I've found that going over the whole process from step 1 has a greater chance to reveal errors in logic.)

First off: Establish a baseline of power. We're assuming that 1 character level = 1 CR. I'd figure out the average power of a character at a given level (much like you did, by assigning values to class abilities) and use that as CR 1. WotC used the typical 4-person party, but I think you should use 1. 4 PCs represents 4 times as many combinations of power and levels as a single PC. If you use 1, with an average
Use 1 generic PC, with the average power level (including wealth) of a PC of level x (as determined by averaging the power levels of all the base classes). Incidentally, I think the official wealth charts are way off - I've already gone on about this at great length, but I think using a balanced (and uniformly increasing) wealth progression would do a lot to curb PC power progression.

Why 1 PC, you ask? Simple: Once you know how strong ONE PC is, you can add more and determine how that affects the power level. For example (and I'm pulling this out of thin air), a second PC of equal level could increase the PAL by *1.3. This is how they're doing it in 4E, incidentally - they're balancing 1 PC against 1 monster, so that they can throw larger numbers of monsters against the party, making encounters more fun and giving everyone something to do.

Second: Compare the power level of the PC against monsters of various (projected) CRs via playtesting. See how the PC fares, and assign rough CRs based on this. (And personally, I think that an encounter of (EL = PAL [party average level]) should be moderate, not tough. If you make EL = PAL*2 or whatever, you can't take into account smaller party sizes - a single PC would be constantly fighting stuff well below his CR and getting crap XP.) A PC should have an 50-50 chance of surviving an encounter with a creature of the same power level, all things being equal. I' m not sure where you guys are getting the idea that a 96% chance of winning is moderate - 96% is near-success, in my book.

Third: Add PCs or monsters to either side and see how this increases the power level of that side (the power increase should be the same, no matter which side you use). I postulate that the power increase would be larger at lower levels than at higher levels:

When I was doing up the wealth guidelines, I noticed that there was a correlation between magic item prices (for weapons and armor) and the lowest level at which a PC could afford said items.

At L1, for armor, it was item bonus (IB) *4 = minimum level (ML). At L2, it was IB * 3 = ML. At L3-4, it was IB * 2.8 = ML. After that, it dropped to *2.6 until around L40, then it slowly decreases.

For weapons, it was slightly higher - at L1, it's IB*5 = ML; L2 is IB*4 = ML; then it drops to *3.5 at L3, *3 at L4-5, and *2.8 for L6-40 (then it starts dropping as before).

So, say, adding a second L1 PC (or CR 1 monster) would increase that side's power level by, say, *1.5 (yes, I used a decimal - I don't think that increases or decreases in power level are made in whole numbers). Adding a third would increase it by slight smaller number, and so on until you reach a zero-point - the point at which you can't reasonably increase the power level by adding more creatures. In fact, you might even decrease the power level after a certain point (that's just a theory). I'm not sure where this point would be; I'm guessing around 8-10 times the number of opponents - after that, there are simply too many to be an effective challenge, because a) they're getting in each others' way, and b) not all of them could face the opponent (PCs or monsters) at the same time. This is, of course, also a variable, since the monster's size factors in - 20 Tiny rats would be a decent challenge for a party if they all attacked at once, but 20 Large ogres would not - they couldn't all face the PCs at the same time. For purposes of this system, though, we'll ignore creature size - it's too variable, and it doesn't really add that much to the calculations anyway.

So. Let's say you have one PC. You pit him against one monster, get a baseline success rate, and figure out its CR. Then you add a second PC or monster, and a third, and a fourth, and run it again. Then test the single PC against creatures of higher and lower CRs. Then do it at the next higher level, and the next. See how this affects the success rate, and you can make a progression of multipliers and figure out how much the EL would change based on number of party members or opponents and/or average CR for either side (a group of 5 L1 PCs vs. 5 CR 1 monsters would be EL +0; doubling the number of PCs would drop the EL by, say, -2, and increasing the number of monsters would increase it by +2).


I still believe you can have a viable CR system. But the sheer number of modifiers and variables involved complicate things.

I mean you have to ask yourself:

1. Is the monster CR correct?
2. Are these classes balanced?
3. Are there any situational modifiers in play?
4. Are these PCs min/maxed?
You pretty well have to assume 1 and 2 are correct (that is, the monster CR is accurate, and the classes are balanced). Although, if the class is over/underpowered, you could simply apply a CR modifier to that any PCs with levels in said class. 3 is easy - just modify the EL. Same with 4 - if the PCs are min-maxed, boost their PAL to reflect the increased power level.
 
Last edited:

Howdy Kerrick mate! :)

Kerrick said:
Why 1 PC, you ask? Simple: Once you know how strong ONE PC is, you can add more and determine how that affects the power level. For example (and I'm pulling this out of thin air), a second PC of equal level could increase the PAL by *1.3. This is how they're doing it in 4E, incidentally - they're balancing 1 PC against 1 monster, so that they can throw larger numbers of monsters against the party, making encounters more fun and giving everyone something to do.

Its not exactly as a simple as that...although its pretty simple.

Reading between the lines, their idea is to have monster level parallel PC level, but in terms of actual power an 'equal' monster will only be 50% as powerful as a same level PC.

So when they say an elite monster will be a good challenge for 2 PCs that probably means a PC will themselves be roughly equivalent to an Elite Monster of their own level.

To use a similar method for 3.5 you would first have to establish the monsters ECL then multiply that ECL by 1.25 to represent its challenge 'Level'.

Lets say the Balor is ECL 24, multiply that by 1.25 and the Balor becomes a Level 30 monster.

So 5 Balors against 5 30th-level PCs would be a good encounter (the PCs will be 75% likely to win).

Or we could say that the Balor is a Level 24 Elite monster, whereupon two of them would be a good encounter for four 24th-level PCs (again with the PCs having a 75% chance of victory).
 

Kerrick

First Post
Reading between the lines, their idea is to have monster level parallel PC level, but in terms of actual power an 'equal' monster will only be 50% as powerful as a same level PC.
Why? Is it simply to provide more of a challenge, or just to make the PCs seem more powerful than they really are? ("Wow, we can take on elite goblins at 2nd level! We're cool!") This seems kind of odd...
 

Kerrick said:
Why? Is it simply to provide more of a challenge, or just to make the PCs seem more powerful than they really are? ("Wow, we can take on elite goblins at 2nd level! We're cool!") This seems kind of odd...

The idea is very simple, monsters of the same level are only half as powerful as the PCs because if they were equally powerful every encounter would be a 50/50 fight and thus your PCs would be dead within a few encounters.

My guess is that you add monster levels to get a good encounter, so if your five PCs are each 5th-level, you might have the following group as an encounter:

1 Level 5 Monster
5 Level 1 Monsters
1 Level 3 Monster
1 Level 2 Monster
1 Elite Level 5 Monster

etc.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top