Dire Tigers CR is WRONG.....

[kreynolds]

I'm still not sure I'm getting it, or how this helps me as a DM.

The difference in how the two systems work is really simple. I'll break it down for you...

Core Rules
Each creature has a challenge rating. This challenge rating assumes the creature will be facing a party of 4 to 5 PCs. Aside from external factors, such as environmental conditions, a single creature's EL equals its CR. So, if you wanna set up a fight your players using a single monster, just find a monster who's CR is equal to the party level of the PCs. Done.

If you have fewer than 4 PCs or more than 5 PCs, the EL system breaks down, as there is very little advice given to you as to how to handle situations like this.

UK's System
Each creature has a challenge rating. This challenge rating assumes nothing. It's challenge rating is on par with a PC of equal level. How many PCs are in the party affects the EL. How many monsters and what type of monsters, whether similar, different, or both, further affects the EL.

The drawback to UK's system when compared to the core rules is that it involves far more math when figuring out ELs. However, the benefit is that it removes the guesswork from ECLs, and it is hands down a far better system when used to create custom templates, monsters, and even classes.

UK's system is far from complete, but the concept is sound. It's also getting quite bloated, but I suppose that's the cost of accuracy and precision.

 

[kreynolds]

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.

I think it's perfectly fair. It reveals the basis of the system, the fact that the core rules make an assumption in regards to the size of the party, thereby reducing a creature's actual CR to account for this. The system works great until you go outside the norm, such as with a party less than 4 or greater than 5. Ask anybody how funky it can get running a solo game. This happens because the CR system was not meant for this.

It's a matter of perspective and preference. I find it funky that a PC's CR equals its ECL, but a monster's does not. To me, it makes more sense that a creature and PCs CR would be the same as its ECL, and that the EL is what is used to measure relative power levels for encounters. Both systems work. I just think that the core rules do it in the sloppiest manner possible.

 

[kreynolds]

Ummm, using "hardly any resources at all" is less than 20%. If I go through a fifth of my personal resources, I noticed it.

You've got it mixed up. A moderate encounter will drain the party of about 20% of it's resources, not each individual member of that party 20% of their resources. In other words, if you have 4 people in the party, and the party is drained of 20% of their resources, then in theory, each party member will be drained of 5% of their individual resources. However, this doesn't always end up being an even loss, and sometimes it could be more or less, such as when a fighter does most of the work and looses a whole bunch of hit points, or when the resident spellcaster does all the work, keeping the party at a safe distance, and uses a bunch of his spells.

 

[Anubis]

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.

You misunderstand this because UK has a very bad habit of doing that stupid moderate-difficult thing that a majority of people simply won't understand. What it MEANS is that a Level 52 party is PEL 23 and a CR 52 creature such as the Winterwight is EL 23. A Level 48-55 party would find it to be a "moderate" encounter, otherwise known as a "normal" encounter. If you divide the real CR by half, however, that is the rating by which it is a 50/50 encounter. That CR number actually has no official place but to help DMs find the approximate level characters would find it to be a 50/50 encounter. An EL 23 creature is a 50/50 encounter for a party that's PEL 19, and Level 26 (CR 26) translates to PEL 19 for the party.

To explain how YOUR party handled the thing is simple. You have six PCs at Levels 17-18 right? Well, a Level 17 party translates to PEL 17, and six PCs make it PEL +1 for a total of PEL 18. As such, you're still only one EL away from the 50/50 mark. In other words, nowhere near an "impossible" encounter", but rather just a VERY difficult one. This sounds pretty much on the dot and explains everything.

 

[Storm Raven]

You've got it mixed up. A moderate encounter will drain the party of about 20% of it's resources, not each individual member of that party 20% of their resources. In other words, if you have 4 people in the party, and the party is drained of 20% of their resources, then in theory, each party member will be drained of 5% of their individual resources.

Umm, no. If a group of four people is drained approximately 20% of their resources, then the sum total for each individual subpart of that group should also be 20%.

A of four people party has total party resources of 100%, not 400%. When you drain 20% from the group, that drains 20% from the subset consisting of each member.

 

[Anubis]

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.

It's the beauty of UK's system. With UK's system, CR and ECL are almost always exactly equal. There is still debate on a couple of conditional modifiers, but that's about it. You add the ECL to the level and you add to the final number based on how much equipment there is, simple. That's part of what's great about the system.

CR and ECL should already always be equal seeing as if one creature of a CR is equal to the party level, then that same creature should be able to be on said party as it would be equal to a single character four levels higher. UK's system makes this possible and standard as it should be.

CR and ECL are now "handy guides". Since they produce DIRECT results (XP and treasure) they should all be as accurate as possible. Certain unlikely things such as a monster not being able to attack at all produces an EL penalty and that's about it. Conditional modifiers are always factored in EL though, not CR.

 

[kreynolds]

Umm, no.

Umm, yes. The problem is that I was remembering the wording in the DMG incorrectly. I was remembering "party" instead of "player". If the wording was indeed "party", I would be correct, as that wording is treating the party as a single entity with a pool of resources. A 20% drain on that pool would equate to roughly a 5% drop in resources for each party member (assuming four PCs in the single party entity).

I only mention this because I was put off by the opening of your post.

However, because the wording actually states "PC's", you are correct. My thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Anubis]

Actually "20% of the party's resources" DOES mean their DAILY resources, not their overall resources. Also, "encounter using 20% of resources" has ALWAYS been inaccurate, by the current rules and by UK's. I have never in my life seen a "20% resource" encounter take up 20% of resources under either system. In fact, these encounters almost always use up only about 5-10% of the party's resources, which is probably the point kreynolds was trying to get across. We SAY "20% of the party's resources" because that's how the WotC system equates these normal encounters be it true or not. An equal EL challenge should be able to be faces six or seven times before resting, moreso at higher levels. The 20% thing is just a discussion basis, not a mathematical calculation. Always has been, always will be.

 

[Storm Raven]

Umm, yes.

Umm, still no.

The problem is that I was remembering the wording in the DMG incorrectly. I was remembering "party" instead of "player". If the wording was indeed "party", I would be correct, as that wording is treating the party as a single entity with a pool of resources. A 20% drain on that pool would equate to roughly a 5% drop in resources for each party member (assuming four PCs in the single party entity).

No, a 20% drain on the pooled resources of a party would equate to a 20% drain on the individual resources of the party.

Assume party members contribute a numerical amount of resources. Say they each contribute "10" resources. Thus, the total party pool of resources is "40" for a four member party.

Now, assume an encounter drains 20% of the party resources. This is "8" (40/5 = 8). Thus, the proportional share of the resources used by each individual party member will be "2", or exactly 20% of their resources.

In any given group of items that consitute a single entity, a proportional drain on the entire entity's resources will drain an equal percentage of the resources of each member of the group if the loss is distributed proportionally.

I only mention this because I was put off by the opening of your post.

Apparently you were put off by some basic math then.

However, because the wording actually states "PC's", you are correct. My thanks for pointing this out.

Whether it says "party" or "PC" does not matter.

 

[Storm Raven]

Actually "20% of the party's resources" DOES mean their DAILY resources, not their overall resources.

Their daily resources being mostly in the form of spells, hit points, and daily use abilities and items, yes. It is also in the form of perishable items that will be replenished in the normal course of adventuring (such as arrows, scrolls, and item charges).

Also, "encounter using 20% of resources" has ALWAYS been inaccurate, by the current rules and by UK's. I have never in my life seen a "20% resource" encounter take up 20% of resources under either system. In fact, these encounters almost always use up only about 5-10% of the party's resources, which is probably the point kreynolds was trying to get across.

No, he's just getting his math wrong.

But encounters don't take up an exact amount of resources. They are estimates. They can be simple, easy kills (fly and hit the colossal scorpion with arrows from above), or they can be deadly (get trapped in a corner by a colossal scoripion with no way to maneuver), or they can be in between. It is a rough estimate.