Dire Tigers CR is WRONG.....

[LGodamus]

Krusty while you are answering...how about that dire tiger in your system...what are the chances of a party of four without prior buffing or foreknowledge have vs. ye olde evil tiger of doom

 

[Anubis]

According to the PDF, the Dire Tiger rates at 12.200, which means it's CR12/EL15.

 

[LGodamus]

thanks anubis......
figures ....I trust UK's little system a fair bit more than the oft wrong headed guesses in the MM.

 

[LokiDR]

UK - thoughts on your system

Upper-Krusk, after purusing your system: I don't like it.

First, you don't address the most important element of encounters: situational modifiers. For a system that prides itself on numbers, all you have is a basic reference to Core Rulebook II, page 102. That following page lists 7 elements that change EL in general. There are no numbers. The observations aren't very useful, as they are relatively obvious to those who think about it or have experience with them. Relegating all situational modifiers to this small section of the DMG (which might change location in 3.5) does not say much about the completeness of the system. It seems more like a CYA.

Next, I don't like some of your numbers. Take flamebrother salamander, CR 4 under your system, EL 9. Four characters of 5th level in your system makes a PEL of 1. PEL+8 falls into the "very difficult" range of your encounter sceme. If four 6th level characters need to work to kill a 16hp AC 19 creature, it is a very pittiful party.

Then, I take issue with your treatement of ECL and templates. It appears that I must recalculate a characters ECL every time they level due to ability power differences vs level and fractional rounding. I am not willing to do that, as a party of 7 people can have people leveling every session.

As for your PDF, I think it suffers some significant issues. The titles are in a hard to read format. The drop-shadows used on the page border titles are distracting from the text. I shouldn't have to work to identify the chaper title. The side notes are sloppy, and occasionally insulting. No person who could understand your system would not understand the <= symbol. You forward reference several places (like "see next section") which is a horrid tatic. You should be more up-front about your redefinition of terms like EL in the first place, rather than leaving people with the conception of EL and CR from the DMG untill nearly 2/3rd of way through the article.


Finally, I think you talk up your system far too much as you attempt to explain it. The following is a good example:

However CR does not parallel EL in the same way
the official rules attest. As we ascend in power, the effect
of CR upon EL diminishes. That fact is plainly obvious;
though certainly more and more pronounced the higher
we take things.

Don't insult the rules you are trying to append, it is just bad form. Don't EVER say something is "plainly obvious" as even something as simple as gravity doesn't work as expected in strong updrafts or away from a planet/star. If all was as you attested, there would be others writing their own modifications the EL system, and I haven't seen a rash of those.

All in all, an interesting concept but an implementation that fails live up to my expectations of rule modifications: simple, direct, well thought out, and understandable. I think you have a created a system that works well in power curve of Epic games, but lacks the proper footing for the levels the majority of games I have seen run: 1-7. I still look forward to this article being published, and the general response it gets.

 

[Fenes 2]

After reading through that thread my head hurts.

I tailor any monster/boss fight to my specific party's capabilities. I check DR, AC, hitpoints, resistances, special abilities, circumstances etc. for both party and opponent when creating and modifying an opponent.

I don't need a detailed CR system, since even the most detailed system could only be a starting point at best for the custom,izing of the opponent in question.

I don't need calculations, values etc. - I just need the PC's character sheets when choosing the opponent, and a bit of experience DMing the party. No CR system will ever be as exact as my current way of doing Opponents, nor as well-suited for my needs.

 

[Coredump]

Loki, while I am still weighing how I feel about the pdf, I think you may have misinterpreted a few things.

First, UK has stated a few times that he still has to do the situational modifiers; they are not being ignored, just not completed yet.

Second, I cannot be sure while sitting here, but I think the Salamder/5thlevel party scenario is messed up; I think you missed something there.

Third, I can just about bet that the ECL for a template is not meant to be calculated every level.

I do agree, at least to an extent, regarding most of the 'formatting and style' comments you made; but I really like the funky font used.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi there LGodamus!

...and thanks Anubis for dropping by and filling in for me.

Krusty while you are answering...how about that dire tiger in your system...what are the chances of a party of four without prior buffing or foreknowledge have vs. ye olde evil tiger of doom

I just took a look at the Dire Tiger* and it shares a problem with the Colossal Scorpion in that it breaks WotCs own Design Parameters.

12.3 by my reckoning Anubis.

eg. A normal Tiger has Str 23 and Con 17 and it is a Large Creature. The Dire Tiger is Huge and should plausibly have Str 31 and Con 21 (instead of Str 27, Con 17 respectively).

Therefore while it rates a 12 on the system, because it breaks these parameters it should only rate CR 11.

11th-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)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: UK - thoughts on your system

Hi LokiDR!

Upper-Krusk,

Presumably that is the epic version of Krusk you are refering to?

after purusing your system: I don't like it.

Then lets address your complaints in turn.

First, you don't address the most important element of encounters: situational modifiers. For a system that prides itself on numbers, all you have is a basic reference to Core Rulebook II, page 102. That following page lists 7 elements that change EL in general. There are no numbers. The observations aren't very useful, as they are relatively obvious to those who think about it or have experience with them. Relegating all situational modifiers to this small section of the DMG (which might change location in 3.5) does not say much about the completeness of the system. It seems more like a CYA.

Absolutely - which is why (as I have mentioned previously) I am in the process of expanding that section to give more solid framework for them.

Also remember that what you have seen is in effect a playtest document - and not even the latest version of it at that!

Next, I don't like some of your numbers. Take flamebrother salamander, CR 4 under your system, EL 9.

I just checked the latest version and it should be CR 3 (sorry about that). As I mentioned with the Winterwight earlier in this thread there could be discrepancies between the CRs listed at the back of the pdf (version 1) and the latest version.

Apologies for any confusion that causes.

Four characters of 5th level in your system makes a PEL of 1. PEL+8 falls into the "very difficult" range of your encounter sceme. If four 6th level characters need to work to kill a 16hp AC 19 creature, it is a very pittiful party.

Actually remember that characters are affected by the EL table just as much as monsters:

So a single 5th-level character = EL 10
Four PCs = +4 EL
Party Encounter Level (always -4)
therefore = EL 10 (10 + 4 - 4)

So the amended Flamebrother (CR 3/EL 7) is actually a EL -3 encounter for your party. Its not even a moderate encounter making it a complete walkover! Though 12-15 Flamebrothers would constitute a difficult (50/50 encounter).

Single Flamebrother = CR 3/EL 7
12-15 = +7 EL
Total EL 14
therefore four more than the party making it a 50/50 encounter.

Then, I take issue with your treatement of ECL and templates. It appears that I must recalculate a characters ECL every time they level due to ability power differences vs level and fractional rounding. I am not willing to do that, as a party of 7 people can have people leveling every session.

Well, firstly there are only a few variable CR Templates. Secondly using the official rules you would still have to change the PCs ECL anyway in the same manner - so your claims are something of a red herring.

As for your PDF, I think it suffers some significant issues. The titles are in a hard to read format. The drop-shadows used on the page border titles are distracting from the text.

That font has been the subject of much debate.

Generally it combines upper and lower case letters. My reasoning in choosing it was to symbolise the relationship between the divine and the mundane (Gods and Mortals*).

*remember this work is an excerpt from the Immortals Handbook.

I shouldn't have to work to identify the chaper title.

I'll look into it. Thanks.

The side notes are sloppy, and occasionally insulting. No person who could understand your system would not understand the <= symbol.

You really found that insulting, thats interesting, I thought I was just being helpful.

You forward reference several places (like "see next section") which is a horrid tatic. You should be more up-front about your redefinition of terms like EL in the first place, rather than leaving people with the conception of EL and CR from the DMG untill nearly 2/3rd of way through the article.

Well firstly it mentions on page 1 in the first paragraph all the changes I make - including Encounter Levels...perhaps you missed this or glossed over it?

But isn't that a catch 22 situation whereby if I would explain EL first then someone would come along and say 'well you left us hanging thinking that CR was the same as the official rules' etc.

Finally I am sure rerouting like 'see next section' is kept to an absolute minimum and only used when unavoidable.

Finally, I think you talk up your system far too much as you attempt to explain it. The following is a good example:

Don't insult the rules you are trying to append, it is just bad form. Don't EVER say something is "plainly obvious" as even something as simple as gravity doesn't work as expected in strong updrafts or away from a planet/star.

My intentions were never to insult the official rules; simply try and get people to recognise that there is a problem.

If they were perceived as such (and you are the first person to make such claims out of the 300+ who have seen the system) then I of course apologise.

If all was as you attested, there would be others writing their own modifications the EL system, and I haven't seen a rash of those.

Well perhaps I am the first.

The likely reason is that not enough games publishers have gotten to grips with the epic rules yet. I only noticed the flaw in the system because I was writing the Immortals Handbook and put really* high-level play through its paces wherein any such flaws are magnified.

*Really, really high-level.

The official rules function without much problems up to epic levels. So people might have seen a few discrepancies here and there but never thought they constituted a complete change.

All in all, an interesting concept but an implementation that fails live up to my expectations of rule modifications: simple, direct, well thought out, and understandable.

Well seemingly its not simple enough since you did not grasp all the elements on your first try. So that is obviously my mistake for not making things clear enough.

I think you have a created a system that works well in power curve of Epic games, but lacks the proper footing for the levels the majority of games I have seen run: 1-7.

Well I would argue that it works equally well at any measure of power.

I still look forward to this article being published, and the general response it gets.

Thanks, and thanks a lot for the feedback, much appreciated mate.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi there Fenes 2!

After reading through that thread my head hurts.

I tailor any monster/boss fight to my specific party's capabilities. I check DR, AC, hitpoints, resistances, special abilities, circumstances etc. for both party and opponent when creating and modifying an opponent.

You do that for every encounter?

I don't need a detailed CR system, since even the most detailed system could only be a starting point at best for the customizing of the opponent in question.

I doubt I have missed any elements or factors!?

I don't need calculations, values etc. - I just need the PC's character sheets when choosing the opponent, and a bit of experience DMing the party. No CR system will ever be as exact as my current way of doing Opponents, nor as well-suited for my needs.

If you have a method that works for you then I say great.

But not everyone does, and added to that I would also venture you are not running an epic campaign wherein the official rules quickly disintigrate.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Coredump mate!

Loki, while I am still weighing how I feel about the pdf, I think you may have misinterpreted a few things.

Indeed, though its my responsiblity to make sure he doesn't miss things.

First, UK has stated a few times that he still has to do the situational modifiers; they are not being ignored, just not completed yet.

Absolutely, remember this is a playtest document, and a n early version at that.

Second, I cannot be sure while sitting here, but I think the Salamder/5thlevel party scenario is messed up; I think you missed something there.

Yes. He forgot that the party are also applicable to the new CR/EL relationship.

I'll have to make that clearer.

Third, I can just about bet that the ECL for a template is not meant to be calculated every level.

Indeed, and even then this is something that already applies within the core rules so its no indictment on my system.

I do agree, at least to an extent, regarding most of the 'formatting and style' comments you made; but I really like the funky font used.

I love you!

Regarding the font, feedback has been about two thirds in favour and since I both like it and have a good reason for using it I will likely retain it. But interesting to note you also questioned the formatting and style. I may have to address that...