Dire Tigers CR is WRONG.....

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Re: Re: Limited use for new or epic?

Hey.

Hello again LokiDR mate!

Hold on buckaroo, your house rules are not published rules.

Only Temporarily.

When I say rules, I mean published rules.

Be seeing you in a few months then.

If your formulas make it into the revised DMG, we can have this discussion again in two months.

Unfortunately I proffered them up to late to be included in 3.5

Yes, more of an art. DMing really is more art than science.

Determining Challenge Rating is not an art. Thats just propaganda that was put out because people previously didn't know how.

The needs your system fulfills are not needs I have.

Thats fair enough. I appreciate your honesty.

I might look at it, but I don't even have a current campaign to test it in.

Ah, poor Epic rules, going the way of Psionics.

The epic rules work fine once you iron out the few flaws as I suggest (starting with CR)

As I recall, the DMG guidelines give a few general examples, far from listing many of the common changes.

I think most situations will fall into easily discernable common denominators.

This lend credience to the "DMing as an Art" theory.

Don't believe the hype.

Wow, are you in publications? I feel like I have just entered an advertisement.

I outline all the benefits at the start of the pdf...you just caught the abbreviated version of that.

I'm glad you believe in your system.

Not a matter of belief. Simply a matter of fact.

Now here are my issues: Accuracy, Balance, and Certainty can not be gained unless you have complete knowledge of the situation.

On the contrary I can know exactly

Your system lacks two pieces of the equation: my party makeup and the specifics of the situation.

If the Party are overtly specialised in some area then the odds are that this will even out over the course of their adventures. So I wouldn't unduly worry about this.

Any specifics of the situation that drastically affect the encounter are handled under situational modifiers.

Flexibility only applies in adding new game elements, not in using creatures in new ways.

One example is that using my CR system you can accurately restructure your campaign for low magic or high magic.

Easy integration is questionable, since you are talking about changing the entire CR and ECL system, and that is a lot of monsters/NPC/PCs,

In the final draft I will list every Monster Manual and Epic Level Handbook Monsters revised CR.

but I would need to study it closer.

Well its there if you want to take a look, or you could wait for the article in Dragon Magazine *touch wood*. That said I haven't given it to them yet but I did get talking to people in both WotC and Paizo about it.

Epic is...Epic. I don't think Epic games should be played the same way you play standard D&D.

Perhaps, but to me that makes no difference as to how we rate Challenge Rating.

Monster advancement that works would be nice, if commonly used it and it wouldn't require other changes.

Monster advancement made easy, monster creation made easy, monster tinkering made easy. Perfect CRs and ECLs every time, no guesswork involved.

I would do it in a web form, but I work with web applications. ASP form creator would probably be easiest, if you knew it (which I don't)

Thanks, I'll look into it.

Now, you see, you have made several changes.

I presume you mean from the official rules you are used to...?

First, you don't use an APL, but figure a party EL.

I figured both. You stipulated they were all 5th-level (and you didn't mention templates and the like). Therefore the average Party Level was 5th.

CR 5 = EL 10 in my system. You suggested 7 PCs which adds +5 to EL. Party Encounter Level is always four less than if the group were treated as opponents. Thats why EL +4 is always a 50/50 encounter.

So its PEL (Party Encounter Level) 11

Next, you changed the Girallons CR (which probably needed it).

They are CR 7 by my system. I don't trust the official rules.

Then you figure an EL of 15, double the CR of the creature in question.

Everytime you double the Challenge Rating Encounter Level increases by four. That is the mantra of my system, born out by playtesting.

eg.
CR 1 = EL 1
CR 2 = EL 5
CR 4 = EL 9
CR 8 = EL 13
CR 16 = EL 17
etc.

Of course the pdf also fills in all the gaps inbetween.

But also Encounter Levels in my system are relative. So the difference between CR 33 and CR 22 is EL +/-2 (x1.5 or x2/3rds).

Standard EL calculation would be something more like 7+2+2, or 11.

I don't use standard EL though.

EL 11 vs APL 5 party means that the PCs should run, or at least be very careful. I might run the combat, but I would be very careful with a contingency plan if the PCs couldn't get out.

Absolutely. Like I said its 50/50.

Let me know if you do get published. This sounds like it can be useful to some people at least.

Its definately getting published; since it forms the Appendices of the Immortals Handbook I am designing.

However, I will probably submit it to Dragon Magazine as well, thats what Ed Stark suggested after he told me it was outside the window of opportunity for 3.5.

As I said, I don't even think Epic games should be run like non-Epic games. But I will leave it to those that run Epic games. Epic rules are an add-on to the system in any event.

They are all d20 though.

 

[Madfox]

I didn't say anything was unusual. I just said that the party's preparations allowed it to negated a sizeable portion of the winterwight's CR. If the average party is to be expected to negate that portion, then it's CR wouldn't be as high.

But isn't it the idea of the CR that the PCs will try to negate the sizeable portion of the winterwight's CR? I mean, negating CR will mean the expanditure of resources and hence it is still part of the CR value, or am I missing something? Isn't the CR supposed to be independent of circumstances, because if it is dependend a DM will need to do a lot of work while quickly skinning through the MMs for some appropiate challenge or when circumstances change drastically due to the actions of the players (as I have seen happen so often)? It is EL that is dependent on circumstances. Perhaps indeed rules are needed to help a DM get a better graps of EL, but somehow I doubt I will use it too often. Things change too quickly during a game to keep recalculating all following encounters.

 

[kreynolds]

Isn't the CR supposed to be independent of circumstances, because if it is dependend a DM will need to do a lot of work while quickly skinning through the MMs for some appropiate challenge or when circumstances change drastically due to the actions of the players (as I have seen happen so often)? It is EL that is dependent on circumstances.

Of course, but I think this has already been sufficiently covered. Also, see my 8th post on the 3rd page.

Perhaps indeed rules are needed to help a DM get a better graps of EL, but somehow I doubt I will use it too often.

To each his own, I suppose.

Things change too quickly during a game to keep recalculating all following encounters.

Oh, I don't know. If I'm familiar enough with a system, I can use it and still keep up with the pace of the game.

 

[Elric]

Upper Krust, does your system have a way to take the varying power of templates (among other things) into account?

For example, a 16 HD (advanced) Gargantuan Fiendish Black Pudding is CR 10 by the book but is virtually impossible to kill (over 200 HP, SR 25, splits when damaged by weapons and resistant to fire and cold). Can your system take this into account? A character of mine was recently killed by a (normal) Fiendish Black Pudding. Does your system give it a challenge rating higher than 9?

As a different example, the power of DR (in 3.0e, at least) is based on the level of the party-- DR 15/+1 is deadly at first level and almost useless at tenth level. Spell Resistance is similar.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi there Elric!

Upper Krust, does your system have a way to take the varying power of templates (among other things) into account?

Not totally sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that certain templates mean more for certain monsters...?

If so then you have no need to worry about that with my system since it tallies every single ability to begin with anyway.

For example, a 16 HD (advanced) Gargantuan Fiendish Black Pudding is CR 10 by the book but is virtually impossible to kill (over 200 HP, SR 25, splits when damaged by weapons and resistant to fire and cold).

Well lets take a look at how I would detail it.

Standard Black Pudding = CR 10
Advanced Black Pudding (16 HD) = CR 14.5 (rounded down to 14)
Advanced Fiendish Black Pudding (16 HD) = CR 17.65 (rounded down to 17)

Can your system take this into account?

I think it copes admirably with your example, but I would be interested to hear what you thought?

A character of mine was recently killed by a (normal) Fiendish Black Pudding. Does your system give it a challenge rating higher than 9?

Standard Black Pudding with Fiendish Template = CR 12.35 (rounded down to 12)

Which would make it:

12th-level party of 4-5 PCs = EL +/-0 (moderate)
8th-level party of 4-5 PCs = EL +2 (tough)
6th-level party of 4-5 PCs = EL +4 (difficult, 50/50)
4th-level party of 4-5 PCs = EL +6 (very difficult)
3rd-level party of 4-5 PCs = EL +8 (virtually impossible)

As a different example, the power of DR (in 3.0e, at least) is based on the level of the party-- DR 15/+1 is deadly at first level and almost useless at tenth level. Spell Resistance is similar.

At the back of the CR/EL pdf I advocate (as an optional rule) a new variant on Damage Reduction wherein magic weapons that are not sufficiently powerful to penetrate your DR can still reduce the effect of it.

eg. A creature with DR 20/+4 would only reduce damage by 10 points if struck by a +2 weapon.

 

[Elric]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was asking about how templates matter more for certain monsters.

You seem right on about the fiendish black pudding. In the game, the party was 6 8th level characters against the pudding and 4 weaker enemies. Two of the six characters died.

On the other hand, I don't think a fiendish black pudding would scare 12th level characters much. The spellcasters have disintegrate and the characters probably have ACs high enough that the pudding's attacks are ineffective. A creature that needs to roll an 18-20 to hit is a lot less effective than a creature that needs a 12-14.

In any case, a black pudding (especially a fiendish one) is a hard creature give a CR to. If the players let it hit one or more PCs) or don't figure out the splitting it + hitting it with area of effect spells tactic, it is probably going to kill someone. Also, being supported anything that makes retreat harder makes it much more powerful.

I can't comment on too many of the other CR ratings, but 10 might be a little high for a normal black pudding. They just have such bad reflex saves that split makes them really vulnerable against fireball. The advanced black pudding suffers from the same problem and split makes its extra hit points close to worthless. Of course, the party has to figure this tactic out before it eats all of them.

Thanks for the answers! I'm glad someone has a flexible CR system (not that it will bring my character back)! Puddings should be +2 CR for overconfident players

 

[Coredump]

UK,

After reading this thread, I have a few suspicions.

I suspect that part of the issue with communicating is that you not only have changed the CR system, but also (necessarily) changed some of the term definitions. For me, at least, those changes were not obvious and led to some initial confusion.

I suspect that actually *reading* your system may clear those up. This confusion may extend to others you are trying to explain the system to.

I assumed the 'original' CR threads were just full of people whining; had I realized this was the discussion, I would have joined it earlier.



Now, with the caveat and apology that I am posting before actually reading your pdf; there are two issues that I don't think will change upon reading.

First: One of the claims of the 'Art' of DMing is that party make-up can make a large impact on the difficulty of an encounter. You seem to disagree with the concept of any 'art' being involved,

Determining Challenge Rating is not an art. Thats just propaganda that was put out because people previously didn't know how.

yet you do agree on the premise

If the Party are overtly specialised in some area then the odds are that this will even out over the course of their adventures.

Which agrees that party make-up (specialization) can change the challenge of an encounter.

While your system may be better than core; it will still lack the ability to predict the composition of the party. As this thread started, a player was complaining about a Dire Tiger, yet depending on party make-up (NOT overly specialized) it may have been much easier. Same with the scorpion mentioned.
I believe that the core system was designed with your above quote in mind, that on average, things will balance out. Given an 'even' enounter (20% resources) some parties will have the classes/skills/magic/luck/whatever to hardly bat an eye; while others may have to spend 50% of their resources, and that may include a party member.
The difference is that the latter group comes in here screaming about how the CR system sucks.

Even using your 'improved' (quotes because I have not read it yet) system, an EL of +4 may be 50/50 for some/most; but will be easy for others, and a TPK for others still. They same can be said for any of the levels. Having mage heavy/tank heavy/range heavy/whatever heaving may have a large impact. Be prepared for the compaints from those that found the 50/50 to be a cakewalk, or a TPK to come in here and bitch about how "WRONG" your CR system is.


Second: I believe you (though it may have been another) was discussing how a monster CR should match what their ECL would be if used as a PC race.
I strongly disagree.
A CR level is designed with the concept that this creature will be fighting a group of PC's. There are things that will not make a monster stronger, yet would be an incredible boon to characters. (or possibly vice versa)
What about a monster that only needed to meditate for one hour to recover all hit points. This would mean little as an opponent, since they will not likely have a chance to get away to meditate. yet it would be incredibly powerful for a character. I would expect the ECL to be higher than the CR for this.
Or how about a creature that is 'always' found in a certain environment (water, jungle, whatever) It may have powers/abilities that make it a very challenging creature, but only in that environment. Shouldn't the ECL reflect this limitation?


Well, I will try and read your pdf. Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this.

.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Elric!

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Thats okay mate.

I was asking about how templates matter more for certain monsters.

Thats what I thought - I just wasn't sure.

You seem right on about the fiendish black pudding. In the game, the party was 6 8th level characters against the pudding and 4 weaker enemies. Two of the six characters died.

To be honest I don't look at it from the perspective of being 'right' or 'wrong' - months of study and playtesting led to the structure of my CR/EL system and the outline of all the CR factors. Therefore if I have a CR wrong one of the factors must be incorrectly detailed; at this late stage I think I have the factors almost perfect *touch wood*.

On the other hand, I don't think a fiendish black pudding would scare 12th level characters much. The spellcasters have disintegrate and the characters probably have ACs high enough that the pudding's attacks are ineffective. A creature that needs to roll an 18-20 to hit is a lot less effective than a creature that needs a 12-14.

Well remember that a moderate encounter should be a fairly comfortable win for the PCs.

The 'acid test' (to use WotC's vernacular) is setting the 12th-level PCs against an equal number of Fiendish Black Puddings - that should be a 50/50 challenge.

In any case, a black pudding (especially a fiendish one) is a hard creature give a CR to.

Took me about 30 seconds.

If the players let it hit one or more PCs) or don't figure out the splitting it + hitting it with area of effect spells tactic, it is probably going to kill someone. Also, being supported anything that makes retreat harder makes it much more powerful.

The inability to retreat could invariably be a situational modifier.

I can't comment on too many of the other CR ratings, but 10 might be a little high for a normal black pudding. They just have such bad reflex saves that split makes them really vulnerable against fireball. The advanced black pudding suffers from the same problem and split makes its extra hit points close to worthless. Of course, the party has to figure this tactic out before it eats all of them.

(Standard) Black Pudding:

10th-level party of 4-5 PCs = EL +/-0 (moderate)
7th-level party of 4-5 PCs = EL +2 (tough)
5th-level party of 4-5 PCs = EL +4 (difficult, 50/50)
3rd-level party of 4-5 PCs = EL +6 (very difficult)
2nd-level party of 4-5 PCs = EL +8 (virtually impossible)

Thanks for the answers!

Anytime mate!

I'm glad someone has a flexible CR system (not that it will bring my character back)! Puddings should be +2 CR for overconfident players

 

[Nine Hands]

I want to (re)emphasize Coredump's point.

<snip>

A party of eight 5th level characters may look like an effective party of 7th level. Not too bad against a CR 8 creature, right? Just don't be surprised if a Dire Tiger easily squishes two PCs before it is even warmed up.

That works right. 2 PCs = 1/4 of the total party resources

Yes some CRs are off. I really like the Collosal Scorpion, I'm gonna use that some day

 

[Upper_Krust]

Sorry about the delay in this reply, I attempted to post it right after my last one but my internet connection went pear shaped for a while...

UK,

Hi there Coredump!

After reading this thread, I have a few suspicions.

Okay fire away...

I suspect that part of the issue with communicating is that you not only have changed the CR system,

Yes, but for the better.

but also (necessarily) changed some of the term definitions.

On the surface perhaps. However, my mantras were all derived from WotC's initial logic.

eg. Challenge Rating 6 is still a moderate challenge for a party of 4-5 6th-level PCs.

One PC level still equals +1 CR.

Doubling opponents still equals +2 EL, Quadrupling still equals +4 EL.

The main difference is the relationship between CR and EL - which is no longer one for one.

The second major difference is that CR now parallels PC level.

For me, at least, those changes were not obvious and led to some initial confusion.

I can see how that could happen.

I suspect that actually *reading* your system may clear those up.

I imagine it would help.

This confusion may extend to others you are trying to explain the system to.

Well the system is there to download so I wouldn't have to explain it everytime, but I am always happy to answer questions.

I assumed the 'original' CR threads were just full of people whining;

Unfortunately of late that has been true. A few unruly types* started arguing amongst themselves; and my computer being down for two weeks meant that the flames went unchecked.

*You know who you are!

had I realized this was the discussion, I would have joined it earlier.

I generally don't visit the D&D Rules Forum, but since Anubis started throwing my name and system about (though I'm sure with good intentions) I thought I had better intercede before his low diplomacy skill starts to manifest.

Now, with the caveat and apology that I am posting before actually reading your pdf; there are two issues that I don't think will change upon reading.

Go ahead...

First: One of the claims of the 'Art' of DMing is that party make-up can make a large impact on the difficulty of an encounter. You seem to disagree with the concept of any 'art' being involved,

Party makeup has no bearing on an individual monsters Challenge Rating.

However it could affect the Encounter Level of a specific encounter.

yet you do agree on the premise

Which agrees that party make-up (specialization) can change the challenge of an encounter.

Absolutely.

While your system may be better than core; it will still lack the ability to predict the composition of the party.

Party composition should not affect a monsters Challenge Rating, which should be determined in and of its own abilities ~ just like Character Class Level.

As this thread started, a player was complaining about a Dire Tiger, yet depending on party make-up (NOT overly specialized) it may have been much easier. Same with the scorpion mentioned.
I believe that the core system was designed with your above quote in mind, that on average, things will balance out.

Indeed.

Given an 'even' enounter (20% resources) some parties will have the classes/skills/magic/luck/whatever to hardly bat an eye; while others may have to spend 50% of their resources, and that may include a party member.

Absolutely, that represents not only situational modifiers but also (as you point out) luck.

However, neither of those factors affect Character Level and likewise neither should affect Challenge Rating.

The difference is that the latter group comes in here screaming about how the CR system sucks.

The CR system is fundamentally 'broken'.

However, as far as I know, I am one of the few people who can both prove that statement and present a working solution.

Even using your 'improved' (quotes because I have not read it yet) system, an EL of +4 may be 50/50 for some/most; but will be easy for others, and a TPK for others still. They same can be said for any of the levels. Having mage heavy/tank heavy/range heavy/whatever heaving may have a large impact. Be prepared for the compaints from those that found the 50/50 to be a cakewalk, or a TPK to come in here and bitch about how "WRONG" your CR system is.

I feel confident my system is virtually unbreakable *touch wood*. We are still debating the finer points of fractional CRs (over in the House Rules Forum) but other than that 'revision in progress' the CRs (and factors) should all be about as accurate as you will possibly get.

However, I do still need to list the most prominent situational modifier common denominators.

Second: I believe you (though it may have been another) was discussing how a monster CR should match what their ECL would be if used as a PC race.
I strongly disagree.

Except where the ability is time based, as with Fast Healing/Regeneration and Spell-like Abilities at will.

A CR level is designed with the concept that this creature will be fighting a group of PC's.

...and also parallels one PC level.

There are things that will not make a monster stronger, yet would be an incredible boon to characters. (or possibly vice versa)

Specifically all time based effects that would last beyond a typical encounter.

What about a monster that only needed to meditate for one hour to recover all hit points. This would mean little as an opponent, since they will not likely have a chance to get away to meditate. yet it would be incredibly powerful for a character. I would expect the ECL to be higher than the CR for this.

This is already handled in my system.

Or how about a creature that is 'always' found in a certain environment (water, jungle, whatever) It may have powers/abilities that make it a very challenging creature, but only in that environment. Shouldn't the ECL reflect this limitation?

The DM should be wary of creatures they allow PCs to play. I mean you probably don't want to allow purely aquatic races etc.

Savage Species discusses this point a bit further; see pg. 22/23 Difficult Monsters.

Well, I will try and read your pdf.

Thanks, just remember that there have been a few tweaks here and there (errata if you will) since the version available.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this.

Anytime mate.