Challenging Challenge Ratings...again

[Upper_Krust]

Major Redesign of the Encounter Levels System

Hey all!

Okay, last night I uncovered a glaring error in my Encounter Level Breakdowns. I won't say what it is, much too embarrassing that I could miss something so simple.

Anyway, obviously I have already solved the dilemma, but it does radically alter the way Encounter Level is handled.

The old formulas of CR x1.5 = EL +2, CR x2 = EL +4 are wrong.

The new formulas are CR x1.5 = EL +3, CR x2 = EL +6.

However this doesn't exactly tell the whole story. What I have uncovered is that 3.3 characters of an equal level are as powerful

e.g. 3.3 20th-level characters are equal to a single 30th-level character.

Obviously you can't have 3.3 characters, so there is a slight ambiguity.

Likewise 10 characters of an equal level are as powerful as one character double their level.

e.g. Ten 20th-level characters are equal to a single 40th-level character.

So a CR 32 Demogorgon would be the equivalent of thirteen 20th-level PCs.

This also affects how immortals scale.

Instead of a doubling at each increase of divine status, its an effective increase of 3.3.

e.g. A typical Lesser God will be as powerful as 3.3 demigods, or 10 quasi-deities, or 33 hero-deities or 100 Prophets.

Naturally when I get around to typing up Version 6, I'll include all this new data. But I just thought I would give you all a heads up.

Any comments?

 

[Cheiromancer]

Hang the embarassment, what was the glaring error?

 

[Pssthpok]

Seriously. What revealed this error?

I've never been good at interpreting your EL rules, so... damn... get that Version 6 up and running, mate.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys! :\

Hang the embarassment, what was the glaring error?

Its a schoolboy error if ever there was one.

Basically I didn't take into account the diminishing potential of groups of multiple weaker opponents as they get whittled down over the course of a fight.

I know, I know...idiotic. I don't know how I could have missed it.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Ah, so on average the high level opponent isn't fighting n opponents- he's fighting n/2 opponents. And so there has to be twice as many of them. Is that it?

But if the low level monsters gang up on him, they get an advantage, don't they? In fact, the advantage more than makes up for the factor that they are being whittled down. The high level creature needs area effects, or ways to reduce the number of opponents that are attacking him, or something.

Consider if one creature (P) fights four identical monsters A, B, C and D. In one scenario he fights them one after another- in the second he fights them all at once. Ignore flanking (P has uncanny dodge) and damage wasted due to overkill- these are long battles, and dozens of attacks are required to finish each creature off.

Fighting one creature he takes X hit points of damage before he kills it. Fighting four of them, one after another, he takes 4X hit points.

Fighting them all at once, he takes 4X by the time he finishes one of them off (A, B, C and D all do X damage to him). 3X when he kills the second (A is dead, but B, C and D all do X damage), 2X for the third, and X for the fourth. A total of 10X instead of 4X. Twice as much as when he was fighting them individually.

The "ganging up" factor thus more than makes up for the "attrition factor". Area effects (cleave would count) and taking actions to limit the number of attackers are needed to actually balance them. Or special attacks that are especially effective versus low level foes (due to save DCs being too high for them or something). I think these factors can be presumed to be present- otherwise I'd think an ad hoc modifier to xp earned would be due (usually a factor of x2).

I am not convinced that the system needs changing. I wish you would state a fuller argument and discuss the matter before you change something so fundamental.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Cheiromancer mate!

Ah, so on average the high level opponent isn't fighting n opponents- he's fighting n/2 opponents. And so there has to be twice as many of them. Is that it?

You outline the problem below. The more powerful opponent will dispatch multiple weaker opponents thus reducing the overall combat effectiveness of a group of enemies.

But if the low level monsters gang up on him, they get an advantage, don't they? In fact, the advantage more than makes up for the factor that they are being whittled down. The high level creature needs area effects, or ways to reduce the number of opponents that are attacking him, or something.

Consider if one creature (P) fights four identical monsters A, B, C and D. In one scenario he fights them one after another- in the second he fights them all at once. Ignore flanking (P has uncanny dodge) and damage wasted due to overkill- these are long battles, and dozens of attacks are required to finish each creature off.

Obviously when you design an encounter you don't have the enemies attack one at a time...its not a kung fu movie.

Fighting one creature he takes X hit points of damage before he kills it. Fighting four of them, one after another, he takes 4X hit points.

Fighting them all at once, he takes 4X by the time he finishes one of them off (A, B, C and D all do X damage to him). 3X when he kills the second (A is dead, but B, C and D all do X damage), 2X for the third, and X for the fourth. A total of 10X instead of 4X. Twice as much as when he was fighting them individually.

Exactly, I hadn't previously taken that into account, now I have.

The "ganging up" factor thus more than makes up for the "attrition factor".

No it doesn't.

Area effects (cleave would count) and taking actions to limit the number of attackers are needed to actually balance them. Or special attacks that are especially effective versus low level foes (due to save DCs being too high for them or something). I think these factors can be presumed to be present- otherwise I'd think an ad hoc modifier to xp earned would be due (usually a factor of x2).

I agree such factors will almost certainly be present.

I am not convinced that the system needs changing.

I am.

In fact it looks so much better that I can't understand why I didn't spot the flaw before now.

I wish you would state a fuller argument and discuss the matter before you change something so fundamental.

I'll be updating a few website articles to correspond to the new data. Namely the 100th-level Adventure breakdown, Throne of Orcus and the recent sermon on Quicksilver Hourglass.

 

[Cheiromancer]

You know, Craig, an awful lot of my interest in this system has been due to the Challenge Challenge Ratings document. The CR x 2 = EL +4 system translated very elegantly to a system (rather a family of systems) based on squaring the CRs of the monsters and summing to get a "challenge" for the whole encounter. That mathematical aesthetic is most of its appeal to me, and you are just throwing it out the window. If you are going to whimsically discard that whole apparatus, I am not going to go any further with any of it.

I would think that someone who found themselves capable of a "schoolboy error" for several years would think that maybe he should take the time to establish the new system with more rigor- at least with more eyes looking over the reasoning. But apparently that's not the case.

Good bye, Craig. It was a fun couple of years.

 

[dante58701]

In response to the above...speechless, I'm not really sure what's going on here so I'm not gonna ask. I read it, I just don't see the problem that Cheiromancer sees, of course I'm none too familiar with challenge rating formulas either. An explanation in simple people terms maybe?
At any rate, you can't please everyone I guess.

On second glance, I read it more carefully this time. I can see Krusty's point now that I've analyzed it more thoroughly. There was a glaring discrepancy. Particularly regarding the facet that the more powerful something is, the more likely it is to use it's resources more efficiently.

So my guess is that Krusty is still using the system, just modifying it to a more realistic table and recalculating for the variables in gameplay that were previously unaccounted for.

As for my questions...

Are you going to be updating Silversurfer and Galactus as well, in light of the new movies coming out, as well as the fantastic four? I know a lot of fans would like to see this.

Of course a lot of your fans would also like to see the FFVII cast (particularly Sephiroth) and the critters from Hellraiser.

And if so, how would the revised challenge rating system apply to them?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Cheiromancer mate!

You know, Craig, an awful lot of my interest in this system has been due to the Challenge Challenge Ratings document. The CR x 2 = EL +4 system translated very elegantly to a system (rather a family of systems) based on squaring the CRs of the monsters and summing to get a "challenge" for the whole encounter. That mathematical aesthetic is most of its appeal to me, and you are just throwing it out the window. If you are going to whimsically discard that whole apparatus, I am not going to go any further with any of it.

I'm not throwing anything "out the window" I am merely updating the CR/EL mechanic based on new evidence.

I would think that someone who found themselves capable of a "schoolboy error" for several years would think that maybe he should take the time to establish the new system with more rigor- at least with more eyes looking over the reasoning.

I'm totally up for a discussion on the matter (even if based on the evidence it seems to me an open and shut case), but obviously the best way to illustrate the difference will be via the website. Where I can first outline examples and comparisons, people can examine things themselves and then we can discuss it.

But apparently that's not the case.

...well if you had given me a chance to update the website with the new information I think ultimately you would have agreed with the new formula.

I mean I really don't see what you expected of me here? Its not like anything in print has been changed at this point.

Good bye, Craig. It was a fun couple of years.

An eye for an eye, a kneejerk reaction for a kneejerk reaction...is that it mate?

 

[Upper_Krust]

In response to the above...speechless, I'm not really sure what's going on here so I'm not gonna ask. I read it, I just don't see the problem that Cheiromancer sees, of course I'm none too familiar with challenge rating formulas either. An explanation in simple people terms maybe? At any rate, you can't please everyone I guess.

I think hes upset that I have changed something so fundamental without a better explanation, which of course I would have had given a few days. I only hit upon the problem at 1am on Friday night/Saturday morning and I spent the next 3-4 hours going over the mechanics (which has played havoc with my sleep patterns the past few days).

On second glance, I read it more carefully this time. I can see Krusty's point now that I've analyzed it more thoroughly. There was a glaring discrepancy. Particularly regarding the facet that the more powerful something is, the more likely it is to use it's resources more efficiently.

It was a silly mistake, but heh, even Einstein got things wrong on occasion.

As for my questions...

Are you going to be updating Silversurfer and Galactus as well, in light of the new movies coming out, as well as the fantastic four? I know a lot of fans would like to see this.

I need to fix their stats but it won't be because of the movies, more because their stats predated certain stuff from Ascension (like the Artifact/Wealth rules)

Of course a lot of your fans would also like to see the FFVII cast (particularly Sephiroth) and the critters from Hellraiser.

I imagine I'll get around to it eventually.

And if so, how would the revised challenge rating system apply to them?

It doesn't apply to challenge ratings at all. It only applies to Encounter Levels.

A CR 240 Galactus would now be EL +6 for a party of 4 180th-level (and thus CR 120) characters instead of EL +4.

So you would need 8-11 greater gods to have a 50/50 chance against him rather than merely 4-5 (as the previous formula suggested).