Challenging Challenge Ratings...again

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

...

I think (I don't quite remember) the formula for Xp awards was 150 x Encounter level (EL). EL is equal to the party level, plus or minus the modifiers.

Lets say Bob the Fighter and company fight a Balor. Bob and Co. are 10th level. Bob and Co kill said Balor. The Balor, being twice their level, is, say, an EL+6 encounter. (It might not be EL+6, but lets just say it is) So we take the party's level, (10) and add the +6 (16) and then multiply times 150 for their Xp reward. (16 x 150 = 2,400 xp)

Note: I have been using the Unearthed Arcana Xp table recently, so it's been a while since I really took a good look at U_K's definitions of EL and Xp formulas. (The simple 'award xp based entirely on CR' part made my current campaign much easier. A couple of varient rules make giving out Xp a bit more complicated, so I just find the right CR, and round the numbers up a bit based on how wrecked the party gets)

In other words, PCs who kill foes twice their level (or more) don't auto-level. They gain a substantial amount of Xp, but should they somehow kill something way more powerful than them (the old stumble-and-crit-stab-a-Timelord bit) they don't gain 4.5 x 10^2024 Experience points. They gain a meaningful amount of Xp and go on with their miserable 10th level lives.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Ltheb mate!

Well there 'were' 4 of them, level 8, but with very poor equipment for their level (Only one had a magic item, and it wasn't a useful item in combat) so I reasoned their ECL was lower than 8 because of poor equipment and the fact that none of them had a very 'sturdy' (Read: Power gamed) character build. (Party: Rogue 4/Paladin 4; Ranger 8; Dwarven Wizard 8, with a penchant for using fireballs even if the situation makes such a spell inappropriate; and an 8th level Witch, from the DMG)

The mind flayers didn't get surprise, and in fact were beaten in initiative, but of the 3 PCs who went first, only 1 dealt damage. (About 10-ish, not enough to matter) The paladin repositioned himself, (they were in tight quarters) and the Witch Polymorphed into a Gray-Render. (Didn't have any useful attack spells)

Then the mind flayers went. Of course, one lead the fight with a single mind-blast. Blam. Everyone rolls a "1". Everyone. The ranger was stunned for 11 rounds, everyone else for 5 or 6. Then the melee began. After 4 rounds, the witch was now 5 lbs of graymatter lighter, and the paladin was nearing certain doom. He made his prayer roll, and rolled just well enough for divine intervention, (which I comically invoked) in the form of one of the Mindflayers betraying the others and trying to eat the brain of the one grappling him, which bought the wizard time to blast them all with fireballs and lightning bolts. (The group began joking that the Paladin worshiped Cthulu, considering it was a Mindflayer that saved him)
In the end, the paladin was horribly crippled, (which later lead to his demise, killed in his sleep by the traitorous ranger, who later gets his in the form of becoming a dragon's lunch) the witch was perma-dead, (no cleric) and the wizard and ranger were a bit shaken, but otherwise not too bad. It was a good bit of Xp for the three survivors.

Twas a session full of nasty combats. Only the Wizard survived. (And a PC who's player wasn't there. Ironically, he's now the 2nd highest level character.)

Given that you had to pull a deus ex machina to get them out of jail and avoid a total party kill, the EL +6 is validated.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Pssthpok mate!

Who actually understands half of this?

I understand half of it...not sure about the other half though.

I don't.

I can see how it can be confusing. I need to put together a "Dummies Guide to Encounter Levels" or something like that. No offense of course.

All I see are spreads of numbers with "EL +x" and that means nothing to me.
"EL +" implies a base number. What's the base?

The base is the average party ECL.

e.g. A Balor is a moderate (EL +/-0) encounter for a party of four ECL 30 (30th-level) PCs.

Therefore the Balor would be EL 30 (Average Party Level +/-0) for that party.

EL +/-0 is a moderate challenge which means fairly easy.

EL +2 Is a tough encounter (you should set most encounters for EL +1 to +3)

EL +4 is a difficult encounter (use these for sub bosses)

EL +5 is a very difficult encounter (use these for the climax of an adventure)

EL +6 is staring at a TPK* (use these for the climax of a campaign)

*total party kill

So for an EL +2 encounter you would use 2 Balors, for EL +4 you would use 5 Balors, for EL +5 you would use 7 Balors and for EL +6 you would use 11 Balors.

The mode, or the mean CR? Whose CR? The monster, the party?

The main complication to my system is that class levels are not 1:1 with Challenge Rating.

With all the changes invoked by the UKU (Upper_Krust Universe), I don't know which way is up anymore.

Spare a thought for the poor soul who has to try and explain it all.

Isn't there some way to toss out all these damn abbreviation nightmares and consolidate the numbers into something a little more intuitive than HD, EL, CR, ECL? I mean, when we look at a PC, what are we supposed to take note of? What about a monster? Or a monster with class levels? Or a monster with NPC class levels? Or a monster with a template?

Sorry for being so high-strung on this, but I haven't been able to wrap my head around either the means or the need for them to reach the end result of figuring out how much XP to give a party.

Thats okay mate, it just tells me that I need to simplify things a bit more. Over the past few days even I have been getting confused from time to time, and if the designer is getting confused at all, you know other people are going to be having headaches.

 

[Pssthpok]

Hey Pssthpok mate!

Hey hey, UK.

I can see how it can be confusing. I need to put together a "Dummies Guide to Encounter Levels" or something like that. No offense of course.

None taken; I had an easy time working with v4, but v5 began to contradict some of that and now... well...

The base is the average party ECL.

Okay.

e.g. A Balor is a moderate (EL +/-0) encounter for a party of four ECL 30 (30th-level) PCs.

Therefore the Balor would be EL 30 (Average Party Level +/-0) for that party.

Now, is this using the Balor's CR (of 20, IIRC), or ECL (of 30)?

So for an EL +2 encounter you would use 2 Balors, for EL +4 you would use 5 Balors, for EL +5 you would use 7 Balors and for EL +6 you would use 11 Balors.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that this doesn't necessarily account for the fact that fighting one balor pretty much means fighting two.

The main complication to my system is that class levels are not 1:1 with Challenge Rating.

You can say that again.

Spare a thought for the poor soul who has to try and explain it all.

Believe me, I worry about you every time I visit this site.

Thats okay mate, it just tells me that I need to simplify things a bit more. Over the past few days even I have been getting confused from time to time, and if the designer is getting confused at all, you know other people are going to be having headaches.

It's all the nomenclature, really. LA + HD = ECL, but none of those directly translate into CR or vice versa, and EL is a relative value that seems to exist in a quantum state (that is, seeming to occupy no distinct place until directly measured). And I'm an English graduate, not a physicist.

 

[paradox42]

I have just one comment to add here...

e.g. A Balor is a moderate (EL +/-0) encounter for a party of four ECL 30 (30th-level) PCs.

I'm sorry, but it really isn't. Really. Now, I admit that my PCs are slightly more powerful than the average for their level (I've long assumed a "phantom ECL" of +2 for any characters made with my house rules), but even taking this into account- the PCs in my now-Epic game were taking on multiple Balors at once sub-20th-level and winning. Balors are definitely not ECL 30, the WotC CR accurately guages them as being "moderate" for a party of 20th-level characters IMO.

These days, there are at least four PCs in the party who would just laugh if thrown up against a Balor one-on-one, and they're 32nd level max. "How many hit points doesn't it have? What's its SR? (oh, I can beat that in my sleep- good thing, too, *yawn*) Only 100 points of damage if I fail the save against its death-explosion? Come on- where are the hard monsters?" I suspect even the party's Bard (who has concentrated on optimizing non-combat things, particularly party support such as her Bardic Music) wouldn't feel particularly threatened if one were to show up and challenge her now.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi paradox mate!

I have just one comment to add here...

I'm sorry, but it really isn't. Really. Now, I admit that my PCs are slightly more powerful than the average for their level (I've long assumed a "phantom ECL" of +2 for any characters made with my house rules), but even taking this into account- the PCs in my now-Epic game were taking on multiple Balors at once sub-20th-level and winning. Balors are definitely not ECL 30, the WotC CR accurately guages them as being "moderate" for a party of 20th-level characters IMO.

These days, there are at least four PCs in the party who would just laugh if thrown up against a Balor one-on-one, and they're 32nd level max. "How many hit points doesn't it have? What's its SR? (oh, I can beat that in my sleep- good thing, too, *yawn*) Only 100 points of damage if I fail the save against its death-explosion? Come on- where are the hard monsters?" I suspect even the party's Bard (who has concentrated on optimizing non-combat things, particularly party support such as her Bardic Music) wouldn't feel particularly threatened if one were to show up and challenge her now.

I agree with you about the Balor, but thats not a failing of the system, instead its a failing of where you set the proper parameters of what a moderate challenge really is.

As far as I can tell (going by my system), moderate means 'easy'.

In the web article I am updating today I suggest that the sweet spot for setting encounters is EL +1 to EL +3. In fact I even suggest never using a 'moderate' encounter...I have it all colour coded - its lovely.

Another point of note is that a Balor would be EL -1 to your party, not EL +/-0. Somewhere between Easy and Very Easy then.

EL -2 = Very Easy
EL +/-0 = Easy
EL +2 = Tough
EL +4 = Difficult
EL +6 = Dangerous

So moderate probably suits EL +2 much better.

...and that assumes a party of 4, yours seems to be bigger than that.

 

[poilbrun]

Okay, my questions are as follows, and I preface this by saying it's very spout-offy, and that I intend to offend no one:

What does any of this actually matter? EL tables based on a number of enemies of the same CR seems about as useful as udders on a bull, since most encounters of multiple creatures will be comprised of a spread of CRs within a certain range.

Who actually understands half of this? I don't. All I see are spreads of numbers with "EL +x" and that means nothing to me.
"EL +" implies a base number. What's the base? The mode, or the mean CR? Whose CR? The monster, the party? With all the changes invoked by the UKU (Upper_Krust Universe), I don't know which way is up anymore.
Isn't there some way to toss out all these damn abbreviation nightmares and consolidate the numbers into something a little more intuitive than HD, EL, CR, ECL? I mean, when we look at a PC, what are we supposed to take note of? What about a monster? Or a monster with class levels? Or a monster with NPC class levels? Or a monster with a template?

Sorry for being so high-strung on this, but I haven't been able to wrap my head around either the means or the need for them to reach the end result of figuring out how much XP to give a party.

I tend to agree with Pssthpok on this subject.

Also, something else that bothers me is that I am never sure when I read Ascension and when you mention CR, whether you mean WotC CR or UK CR.

I hope we get to see version 6 and the explanation on the website pretty soon so that we can actually refer to it when you talk about it

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey poilbrun mate!

I tend to agree with Pssthpok on this subject.

Also, something else that bothers me is that I am never sure when I read Ascension and when you mention CR, whether you mean WotC CR or UK CR.

They always mean the same thing now.

I hope we get to see version 6 and the explanation on the website pretty soon so that we can actually refer to it when you talk about it

Well, I'll see about that.

The only thing I am wondering about v6 at the moment is whether or not to rate everything in terms of a feat = 0.2 ECL (and then use the silver rule at the end) or rate everything in terms of feat = 0.166 ECL (which eliminates the need for the silver rule).

 

[Pssthpok]

The only thing I am wondering about v6 at the moment is whether or not to rate everything in terms of a feat = 0.2 ECL (and then use the silver rule at the end) or rate everything in terms of feat = 0.166 ECL (which eliminates the need for the silver rule).

Well, is there ever a time when the silver rule shouldn't be applied? If the answer to this is 'yes', then leave feat = .2 ECL; if 'no', then drop it to feat = .166 ECL.

 

[Edheldur]

I hope we get to see version 6 and the explanation on the website pretty soon so that we can actually refer to it when you talk about it

Just wondering... any estimate date about v6? (And yes, I know that UK and "estimate date" don't really go well together, but still... )