Dire Tigers CR is WRONG.....

[LokiDR]

On a different note, what specific measures do you take into account when adjusting CR? Does anyone use some rules of thumb, like "it has DR +1 and none of the PCs have magic weapons yet, but the wizard normally takes two magic weapon spells. +2 CR."

 

[Mark Chance]

That I think was the official philosophy of 1e, ohh well deal with it.

That is still my philosophy as a GM. Works well so far, with one exception in which I seriously underestimated the power of a minor demon. Mea culpa.

And: Deal with it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

I don't usually venture into the D&D Rules Forum but I thought I should perhaps intervene since my name (or more to the point my CR/EL system) is being bandied about...

Hi WizarDru mate!

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here. The scorpion is CR 11. Why would we be discussing low-level parties in relation to it? A 9th level party will find this a dangerous encounter...by design. Not unbeatable, but potentially lethal. But with the relatively low damage output of the scorpion, one archer and a wizard could hold off the creature...with the aid of a cleric, they would do fine.

Are you seriously trying to say that a party would have to be 40th level before they could reasonably deal with this creature? Because I think you must be playing some non-standard, very low magic and resource version of D&D, and not core standard.

The Colossal Scorpion actually breaks a number of WotCs own design parameters hence the reason taken at face value my system does not accurately rate it without adjustment.

For example it is Colossal yet actually has well below minimum Strength and Constitution attributed to it. Additionally its base damage is seemingly half that of other Colossal creatures.

How would you rate a CR 23 Winterwight, then?

CR 52 (moderate); CR 26 (difficult)

Your numbers are completely indicative of why I found UK's system to be faulty.

I would be very appreciative of any feedback, just how is it faulty? I'm sure if you had made any such comments to me I would have responded directly to you.

CR 41/EL 22? How does that help the DM run his game? More math is the last thing a high-level DM needs.

My system outlines the proven fact* that the relationship between Challenge Rating and Encounter Level is different to how the Core Rules attest. Without understanding this relationship though, a lot of my system will seem incongruous.

*Which even Andy Collins himself could not refute and eventually agreed with me.

If you read it I am sure it will all become clear:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45989

The system is no more complicated than the core rules and after initial period of familiarising yourself with it becomes second nature.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi there Hypersmurf!

50/50 encounter at level 20!?

"I cast Imprisonment."

Next?

-Hyp.

...and how is casting Imprisonment on a Colossal Scorpion any different from casting Imprisonment on Elminster, or indeed pretty much any of the Epic NPCs detailed in the ELH?

 

[WizarDru]

Hi WizarDru mate!

Howdy, UK. Good to see you.

CR 52 (moderate); CR 26 (difficult)

So, if I understand this correctly, your system equates a Winterwight as being an appropriate challenge for a party of 4 52nd-level PCs?

I would be very appreciative of any feedback, just how is it faulty? I'm sure if you had made any such comments to me I would have responded directly to you.

Well, we already agreed to disagree, I think. Your system may actually work for you, but it just was too much work for me, especially as I tend to use templates, classed monsters and custom creatures on a regular basis. Your system actually defeats, to me, what the whole purpose of the CR/EL system is, namely to give me a quick benchmark to work against when setting up encounters for my game. I also tend to use a lot of material from other sources, such as last game, when I used Mark Chance's Death-Who-Hops. I'd have to rework his numbers to your system, and any material so imported.

Further, I just don't agree with the number your system generates. I think it's swell that it delineates much more accurately the factors in a creature's difficulty....but unless I'm misinterpeting the numbers, they just don't gibe, for me.

To return to the Winterwight: I had a party of 6 17th-18th level characters engage him, in a playing field that levelled several of the party's abilities (a field in the midst of a powerful blacksnow-storm). Flight was essentially eliminated, ranged attacks were cut down, mobility was drastically reduced. Some players were in danger of being blown away. It's a CR 23 creature. The most powerful weapon possessed was a +5 Blessed Holy weapon (Shatterspike, in the hands of the Paladin). It was the most ambitious combat I had run since the party faced a buffed-up Nightscale two years prior.

While he didn't go down like a ten-pin, and it was a hard fight...no one died, and they used about 35-40% of their resources. The idea that the party wouldn't have been ready to engage him for another 35 levels or so just seems...well, silly.

As for casting imprisonment on the Scorpion...Elminster most likely has spell resistance, if he's buffed. And regardless, it's one spell....that's not even close to 20%.

 

[kreynolds]

So, if I understand this correctly, your system equates a Winterwight as being an appropriate challenge for a party of 4 52nd-level PCs?

He said "Moderate", meaning that said encounter will drain about 20% - 25% of the party's resources. If you want the encounter to be really ugly, you use the lower CR value of 26.

 

[kreynolds]

Your system may actually work for you, but it just was too much work for me, especially as I tend to use templates, classed monsters and custom creatures on a regular basis.

Here is the core difference between UK's system and the core rules. The core rules assume that a monster will be fighting against 4 to 5 PCs, thus the monster's actual CR is lowered so that its EL is equal to the party level of the PCs. UKs system doesn't do that. It gives a true CR, then the EL is modified based on other factors, such as additional monsters and the number of PCs.

The proof is in the pudding of how the core rules work.

A 2nd-level PC fighter has a CR of 2 and an ECL of 2. We know this as simple fact. An ogre has a CR of 2, and get this, an ECL that is not 2. It's ECL is higher than it's CR. Why? Because it's CR has been lowered. Why? Because the CR is based upon the fact that this single ogre will be facing 4 or 5 PCs. It's CR does not assume a 1 on 1 fight. It's EL, however, is indeed a 2.

UK's system instead uses the creature's actual CR, then creates an EL to work with. It just works in the opposite direction. The benefit is that in this system CR damn near equals ECL (a flaw exists that actually prevents ECL and CR from being identical, such as "charging" PCs more for special abilities than you would for a monster, but good luck telling him that ).

 

[WizarDru]

Here is the core difference between UK's system and the core rules. The core rules assume that a monster will be fighting against 4 to 5 PCs, thus the monster's actual CR is lowered so that its EL is equal to the party level of the PCs. UKs system doesn't do that. It gives a true CR, then the EL is modified based on other factors, such as additional monsters and the number of PCs.

I'm still not sure I'm getting it, or how this helps me as a DM. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but this sounds like a lot more work, and not much of a different result. Bringing ECLs into it only makes me more confused. Those are two separate issues, AFAIC.

The Winterwight again, as I have direct experience with it...why two CR values? At CR26, three higher than what I used, the party would have defeated a creature 8 ELs higher than themselves? That seems more out of whack than the first number. If I include the environmental factors, possibly a CR27/28?

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it. Never mind the fact that non of my tools would support such a system, even if I did grasp it. And I think it's pretty obvious I'm just missing something fairly obvious about how the system works.

 

[Grog]

A 2nd-level PC fighter has a CR of 2 and an ECL of 2. We know this as simple fact. An ogre has a CR of 2, and get this, an ECL that is not 2. It's ECL is higher than it's CR. Why? Because it's CR has been lowered. Why? Because the CR is based upon the fact that this single ogre will be facing 4 or 5 PCs. It's CR does not assume a 1 on 1 fight. It's EL, however, is indeed a 2.

Just to play devil's advocate here (since as I've already said, I don't think much of the CR system), I don't think it's fair to compare a creature's CR to its ECL. A creature's ECL is used to balance the creature for play as a PC, and it assumes two very important things:

1) The creature won't have the stats listed in the Monster Manual, but will instead have a point buy or 4d6 drop lowest roll that will be modified according to the MM stats, and

2) The creature will have equipment equivalent to a PC of its ECL (in the ogre's case, that would be a 6th level PC).

That makes a huge difference in terms of power. How powerful would a 6th level fighter with 10's in every stat and no magic items be? That's essentially what the ogre in the Monster Manual is.

 

[kigmatzomat]

None of you can give any way for low-level parties to do that and live to tell about it. Most parties couldn't get past even one much less several. Try using a standard party and standard situations and then you'll see.

I take it you ignore the "create food"/feed it a horse option out of hand? What about the summoned creature as bait? Or hiding behind a magic wall or in a Rope Trick? All these are 9th level and lower abilities and don't require much in the way of preparation.
The players in my game use Create Food to deal with 80% of random animal encounters when the druid isn't around. The other 20% are due to territorial conflicts that food doesn't apply.

Vermin, even colossal vermin, won't consider something food-sized to be a territory conflict. If something drops fifty, sixty pounds of food, a vermin will get distracted.

A 20% encounter is one where you can go toe-to-toe and win most of the time without using hardly any resources at all.

Ummm, using "hardly any resources at all" is less than 20%. If I go through a fifth of my personal resources, I noticed it. To me, 20% translates into more like 25-30% of all daily spells. Why?

The encounter may only take 20% of daily spells to win, but after the fact the fighters are healed up, adding another 5-10% daily output. And while 25-30% usage means that at the end of the fourth fight the caster's are dry, on the fifth fight they will resort to using up their charged items. Note I said "using up" not just using. 100% resource use is NOT 100% daily resources, it is 100% total resources. This is why most encounters are 4:1 odds (EL=party level) in the PCs favor. At 2:1 (EL=Party level+2) odds they begin seriously churning through their assets and at 1:1 odds (EL=Party level+4) they are likely to give it everything they've got.

To an 11th level party, 20% resources amounts to letting the fighter drop to 3hp before getting a Heal (eliminating that nasty poison in the process) and the wizard burning through all his fireballs. To me that's still a little light on expenditure. I'd probably expect a flamestrike, wall of fire or searing light from the cleric. Good tactics or lucky equipment selection can make things easier, but it's called a CHALLENGE rating because it is supposed to be CHALLENGING.