Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CodeFlayer" data-source="post: 8000447" data-attributes="member: 7023926">My XGE based suggested party level (SPL) calculations have been off - I wasn't taking into account how solo mob CRs are handled. This was interesting to implement because I wanted to do a direct lookup, and after a try or two I came up with (python code) -[CODE]&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; solo_cr_to_lvl_map = {&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1:[1, 1, 1],&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 2:[2, 1, 1],&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 3:[3, 2, 2],&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4:[4, 3, 2],&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 5:[5, 4, 3],&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 6:[5, 5, 4],&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 7:[5, 5, 5]&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }[/CODE]Which is a dictionary (look up table in python code) of CR values (left of the colon), and an array of values that give the SPL for either four, five, or six adventurers. It may yet contain errors, as an inference of the table from XGE (the book).Moving onto part 2 of the adventure (suitable for 2nd level party of 4) here is the table form (my created language to express roll-able tables) -[CODE]ItemTable part_2 {&nbsp; &nbsp; 4 ruffians(street fight, .cr. 1/2),&nbsp; &nbsp; 3 ruffians(barracks, .cr. 1/2),&nbsp; &nbsp; 3 skeletons(crypts, .cr. 1/4),&nbsp; &nbsp; 2 ruffians(slave pens, .cr. 1/2),&nbsp; &nbsp; 1 nothic(crevasse, .cr. 2)[ chest [&quot;+1 longsword&quot;(.lb.5), &quot;silver chased scabbard&quot;] ],&nbsp; &nbsp; [3 bugbears(guard barracks, .cr. 1), 1 goblin(.cr. 1/4)],&nbsp; &nbsp; 4 ruffians(common room, .cr. 1/2),&nbsp; &nbsp; 1 evil mage(&quot;wizard's workshop&quot;, .cr. 1)}[/CODE]Both methods give the SPL (over thousands of rolls) as 2.1 and 2.2. The solo monster lookup is really important here because of the solo nothic. Without this change to the python code in XGE SPL of 2.5 is generated but drops to 2.2 with the new python code. My confidence in this method grows when the values correlate this way.The adventure text doesn't really tell the GM what to do if the goblin hide out isn't explored, only that it might occur. In the next post I hope to share a part weather, part combat set of encounters that I might use to take the place of the gobin hide out is missed. It will involve an icy magic storm blowing up off the nearby mere of the dead that lies south of Neverwinter and not far from the Tri-Boar Trail.Thanks for reading.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CodeFlayer, post: 8000447, member: 7023926"] My XGE based suggested party level (SPL) calculations have been off - I wasn't taking into account how solo mob CRs are handled. This was interesting to implement because I wanted to do a direct lookup, and after a try or two I came up with (python code) - [CODE] solo_cr_to_lvl_map = { 1:[1, 1, 1], 2:[2, 1, 1], 3:[3, 2, 2], 4:[4, 3, 2], 5:[5, 4, 3], 6:[5, 5, 4], 7:[5, 5, 5] }[/CODE] Which is a dictionary (look up table in python code) of CR values (left of the colon), and an array of values that give the SPL for either four, five, or six adventurers. It may yet contain errors, as an inference of the table from XGE (the book). Moving onto part 2 of the adventure (suitable for 2nd level party of 4) here is the table form (my created language to express roll-able tables) - [CODE] ItemTable part_2 { 4 ruffians(street fight, .cr. 1/2), 3 ruffians(barracks, .cr. 1/2), 3 skeletons(crypts, .cr. 1/4), 2 ruffians(slave pens, .cr. 1/2), 1 nothic(crevasse, .cr. 2)[ chest ["+1 longsword"(.lb.5), "silver chased scabbard"] ], [3 bugbears(guard barracks, .cr. 1), 1 goblin(.cr. 1/4)], 4 ruffians(common room, .cr. 1/2), 1 evil mage("wizard's workshop", .cr. 1) }[/CODE] Both methods give the SPL (over thousands of rolls) as 2.1 and 2.2. The solo monster lookup is really important here because of the solo nothic. Without this change to the python code in XGE SPL of 2.5 is generated but drops to 2.2 with the new python code. My confidence in this method grows when the values correlate this way. The adventure text doesn't really tell the GM what to do if the goblin hide out isn't explored, only that it might occur. In the next post I hope to share a part weather, part combat set of encounters that I might use to take the place of the gobin hide out is missed. It will involve an icy magic storm blowing up off the nearby mere of the dead that lies south of Neverwinter and not far from the Tri-Boar Trail. Thanks for reading. [/QUOTE]

Verification