CR, EL, and Lanchester's Law

[MerricB]

Psion, have you actually tried to read my posts?

I'm pointing out the flaws of Lanchester's Law as applied to D&D, not the flaws of the EL system.

 

[Chris Parker]

What? 1+1=2? Not in this case.

Consider this.

You fight two monsters with 100 HP each. They can each deal x amount of damage. Its significantly easier two fight the two 100 HP monsters then one 200 HP monster that does 2x damage. (assuming no special abilities)

Effectively, once you do 100 damage, you half thier offensive capabilities. You do that to a 200 HP monster, hes still chewing away at your tank for full damage.

Also, the less damage / round of killing off one monster gives your Cleric/Paladin/Misc. Healer a chance to overcome the damage being done, and improve the tank's HP every round, instead of slowing the damage.

The lone 200 HP mob is much nastier, because of is higher damage / rnd, his stamina, and also his presumably better AC, saves, skills (and equip, if applicable). You cant just get thousands of xp at low end because all you did was replace a messanger's note with one that started a war... the DM has to adhoc things and base them off of how challenging they were, how taxing they were to the party, and how often/well the party used thier respect capibilities.

~Chris.

 

[Psion]

Psion, have you actually tried to read my posts?

It's insulting that you suggest otherwise.

I'm pointing out the flaws of Lanchester's Law as applied to D&D, not the flaws of the EL system.

The discussion pertains almost directly to the EL system. It's sort of hard not to be talking about it. You bring up that large discrepancies in power won't allow numbers to win out. My point is merely that the system has never claimed otherwise.

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

I take Lanchester's Law with a large handful of salt when applied to D&D's Challenge Rating/Encounter Level system.

Psion, I think this is what he was insinuating you didn't read.

Lanchester's Law would indicate that the D&D CR/EL system should function in the 10,000 kobolds argument. The D&D CR/EL system does not function in that argument, and pretty much admits it up front.

Therefore, Lanchester's Law is wrong in this case, which is what MerricB pointed out. You've spent three posts arguing that the CR/EL system admits it up front, which in no way contradicts what MerricB said.

 

[diaglo]

I take Lanchester's Law with a large handful of salt when applied to D&D's Challenge Rating/Encounter Level system.

Armour Class, Damage Reduction and other aspects of the game really muck things up.

10,000 kobolds still wouldn't be able to take out a Tarrasque, for instance.

Cheers!

lanchester's law is based on all things being equal.

as Merric notes.. not all monsters are created equal... even taking CR into account.

 

[Psion]

Therefore, Lanchester's Law is wrong in this case, which is what MerricB pointed out. You've spent three posts arguing that the CR/EL system admits it up front, which in no way contradicts what MerricB said.

Did I have to be contradicting him to respond to the thread?

I was merely pointing out that it is announced in the DMG that EL doesn't scale up with numbers indefinitely.

 

[diaglo]

Did I have to be contradicting him to respond to the thread?

I was merely pointing out that it is announced in the DMG that EL doesn't scale up with numbers indefinitely.

right. there is a plateau effect.

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

IOW, you* are pointing out limitations to the system that the DMG has already pointed out for you*.

* this was in response to MerricB

No, you don't have to be contradicting him to respond to the thread. Isn't that what I said?

I apologize for my own confrontational tone. It just seemed like you were tightly wound on the CR/EL issue, and hadn't noticed that no one was actually arguing with you.

 

[MerricB]

Did I have to be contradicting him to respond to the thread?

I was merely pointing out that it is announced in the DMG that EL doesn't scale up with numbers indefinitely.

Indeed. So, where was I disagreeing with that?

You said: "I don't consider making the system model something that it wasn't ever intended to represent as a major failure" in response to my post. I never, ever said that it was a major failure.

I don't know who you were replying to, but it certainly wasn't me.

I like the CR/EL system greatly, but understand its limitations.

Lanchester's Law only really helps when you are determining the Encounter Level of individual monsters that are an appropriate challenge for the party.

There's a big difference between a CR 3 monster with no damage reduction and a CR 5 monster with DR 10/magic. Let's assume that a 3rd level party has no magic weapons, and the 5th level party does have magic weapons.

For the 3rd level party, the danger of multiple CR 3 monsters can be discovered by the application of Lanchester's Law.

However, the CR 5 monster is a different level of threat, and so Lanchester's Law breaks down.

The CR/EL system is a wonderful guideline and is surprisingly accurate - but there are break points in the system, normally related to immunities or resistances the monsters have.

Cheers!

 

[S'mon]

Lanchester's law tells us that in the wilderness, 4 CR 1 orcs vs 4 CR 1 PCs is not the same as 4 encounters each with 1 CR 1 orc, whatever the XP says. I think we knew that already, but it's a handy reminder, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for the DM to award a bit of extra XP in that circumstance.