Dire Tigers CR is WRONG.....

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

K Reynolds

Quite frankly, because some people can't eyeball CR, or even EL, worth a darn.

*Sigh*

With so many factors to look at...

I followed Rich Redman's advice, averaging my player's AC scores, saves, attack bonuses, etc, with some common sense tossed in (eg I'm not including my wizard's crossbow attack bonus at 15th-level) and it seems a lot of high CR opponents are weak. (I had previously used Enemies and Allies for this, and the numbers were pretty good, except for saving throws.)

Many others, however, have too much offense and too little defense (eg that dire tiger that mauled the rogue while pouncing, then got hacked to bits by the barbarian).

Those new barbed devils look really good and pretty balanced, too. The new pit fiend, on the other hand, actually looks a bit weak

It would be nice if I could just pick "random monster A" from the MM and use them as a random encounter, but I doubt that will ever happen. At the moment, even writing a "random encounter chart" takes some work.

(Little aside - multiple creatures with special attacks that force saves are not fun. Usually, to get the EL right, they're attacking party members of level 3 or 4 better than theirs, who usually make their saves. *Sigh*)

 

[Anubis]

He said the situational modifiers were not complete? I thought he said the DMG had a good list. My bad.

Both, actually.

If I misunderstood the math, it shows a weakness in formatting.

No, it shows a weakness in your understanding of what I see as something pretty obviously stated. This is your weakness, not the documents. You need to stop being so combative.

CR 4 means EL of 9, from one of the tables.

Right.

APL 5 means PEL 1 for a for person party, also from a table.

Wrong. First off, assuming APL is Average Party Level, the PDF states flat out that to find the PEL, you take the APL and apply it straight to the CR/EL table. APL 5 = PCR 5 = PEL 10.

You were probably just confused about the EXPLANATION as to why PCs are counted as one instead of four. That explanation is that four Level 5 characters would be CR 5/EL 10 each, with four being EL +4, giving a total EL 14, but PEL is always EL -4, so that makes them PEL 10.

This is actually more of UK just putting too much into it. He honestly shouldcut out the ELK explanation and state ONLY that the PEL is the APL applied to the CR/EL table.

 

[WizarDru]

No, it shows a weakness in your understanding of what I see as something pretty obviously stated. This is your weakness, not the documents. You need to stop being so combative.

Is that intentionally ironic?

 

[Upper_Krust]

...Damage Limitation

Anubis could you please stop making personal attacks. Normally I wouldn't mind what another poster does; but by association you are dragging me down with you. Which is totally counterproductive when I work so hard to cultivate a friendly atmosphere. While I appreciate your dogmatic defense of my system you are not doing either you nor I any favours by being so abrasive.

No, it shows a weakness in your understanding of what I see as something pretty obviously stated. This is your weakness, not the documents. You need to stop being so combative.

If people can't understand the rules on the first pass then its an indictment on the system and my design. While I know the ideas are simple enough it would appear I obviously haven't conveyed that well enough through the design.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: ...Damage Limitation

Normally I wouldn't mind what another poster does; but by association you are dragging me down with you. Which is totally counterproductive when I work so hard to cultivate a friendly atmosphere. While I appreciate your dogmatic defense of my system you are not doing either you nor I any favours by being so abrasive.

No worries from me, UK. You've always handled yourself in a very polite, professional manner. I hope you realize any criticsim I toss in your direction is intended to be constructive. I really applaud the difficult task you've undertaken, and if I find 3.5's CR system to be inadequate or as wonky as 3.0's can be, I'll be knocking on your door.

In other words, just because I'm not a fan of your system as yet doesn't mean that I'm turning it down out of hand. I'm looking forward to the 4.0 version, to see if that works better for me.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Re: ...Damage Limitation

Hi WizarDru mate!

No worries from me, UK. You've always handled yourself in a very polite, professional manner.

I appreciate the kind words.

I hope you realize any criticsim I toss in your direction is intended to be constructive.

Absolutely mate.

I really applaud the difficult task you've undertaken, and if I find 3.5's CR system to be inadequate or as wonky as 3.0's can be, I'll be knocking on your door.

As far as I know they are not making any fundamental changes however what I have noticed from the 3.5 monsters so far is that their CRs are two-thirds the figure my system advocates.

eg. The 3.5 Pit Fiend works out at CR 30 by my system but its CR 20 according to WotC.

Essentially this means moderate encounters (EL +/-0) are really tough encounters (EL+2) under WotCs auspices. Which is probably a step in the right direction since even in balanced situations the PCs probably still have a slight edge for a number of reasons and this takes that into account - even if it is an arbitrary call.

In other words, just because I'm not a fan of your system as yet doesn't mean that I'm turning it down out of hand.

I know that mate.

I'm looking forward to the 4.0 version, to see if that works better for me.

I'll be trying ever harder to convince you.

 

[Anubis]

UK, I think you really are being too critical of yourself. Just because some people don't understand doesn't mean you have done anything wrong nor does it mean the system is inaccurate or worded wrong. It simply means that some people aren't gonna understand for whatever reason. That happens. There is absolutely no way you'll "perfect" your system to the point that everyone can understand it well.

Moving on, as to the criticisms, well, I can give ya'll an argument you'll have a very hard time working through. Whether you like UK's system or not, it's STILL *more accurate than the core system*. So whether it's perfect or not, it's still better and much more accurate.

 

[LokiDR]

Moving on, as to the criticisms, well, I can give ya'll an argument you'll have a very hard time working through. Whether you like UK's system or not, it's STILL *more accurate than the core system*. So whether it's perfect or not, it's still better and much more accurate.

Opportunity cost. It would be more accurate to play my party against the creature several times to gauge their responses, but wouldn't be much fun. It would be more accurate to calculate the numbers myself every time they face a non standard NPC, but I don't care about the math that much.

More accurate != better.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anubis mate!

UK, I think you really are being too critical of yourself.

Thats how you improve, by challenging yourself to do ever better.

Just because some people don't understand doesn't mean you have done anything wrong nor does it mean the system is inaccurate or worded wrong. It simply means that some people aren't gonna understand for whatever reason. That happens.

Nevertheless, gamers shouldn't be having trouble missing major points, if it was only a minor point I could live with it.

There is absolutely no way you'll "perfect" your system to the point that everyone can understand it well.

As long as they grasp the basics on the first pass I will be contented.

 

[Coredump]

Anubis, did you miss the part where UK asked you to chill a bit? Not that you have to listen to him, or anyone else, but come-on; this is meant to be a pretty friendly discussion. It *is* possible for someone to come to a different opinion without being 'wrong'.

UK, I think you really are being too critical of yourself. Just because some people don't understand doesn't mean you have done anything wrong nor does it mean the system is inaccurate or worded wrong.

Being 'too hard' isn't relavent. UK is trying to communicate information; as such he is *obligated* to assume fault for any communication gaffs. If he decides he is not the problem, than he can't supply the solution, and stagnates.
This becomes particulaly important when dealing with detailed information like this, since it is hard to tell if something is a well written 'easy concept' or a poorly written 'hard concept'. If UK wants his system to be acceptable he has to do everything possible to make it simple to understand.

Moving on, as to the criticisms, well, I can give ya'll an argument you'll have a very hard time working through. Whether you like UK's system or not, it's STILL *more accurate than the core system*. So whether it's perfect or not, it's still better and much more accurate.

Ah, but you have a logic flaw here. You state that it is more 'accurate', and then claim that it is therefore 'better'. I have not reached an opinion yet, but my most likely complaint is that it is unnecessarily accurate.
If you are trying to find out how many inches something is, do you need a tool that is accurate for millimeters?
ie. Assuming that any EL based on just CR will have to adjusted +/-1 due to specific party make-up (not mentioning situational modifiers). Then how important is it to be *exactly* accurate? Better? sure, but what benefit for what 'difficulty'. (UK, I realize that theoretically, there will be no 'difficulty'; just making a point.)
Plus, even considering a list from WotC and a list from UK; how many creatures will be significantly different EL?
Also realize, that many people do not play Epic, where the 'problems' with WotC CR are amplified.


UK

eg. The 3.5 Pit Fiend works out at CR 30 by my system but its CR 20 according to WotC.

Okay, but does it matter? From what I can tell, WotC is saying that the Pit Fiend is CR 20, therefore EL 20.
Your method says CR 30, which still translates to an EL of 20. So what is the difference?