Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3143624" data-attributes="member: 141">It occurs to me that all my kernel analysis presumed that enhance = +4 levels.  If it is really +2 levels, my numbers will be off.  Of course, if Heighten is worth a little more it might balance.  Heighten = +3 might work. Bumping a fireball type spell in the old system would increase the save DC by +4 and raise the dice cap by 10d6.  So 4 levels = enhance (+8SP) + heighten (+8SP) = 16SP (plus some other benefit; delay, or whatever).  In the new order it would be enhance (+4SP) + heighten (+12SP) = 16SP.Not that kernel analysis is absolutely correct; it's basically a substitute for intuition, and when intuition differs with the calculations, guess which one has to go? In particular  I'm having trouble reconciling certain spells of a suite with each other: plague vs contagion, for instance.   Plague wants to come out as an epic spell, not a 7th level spell, at least the way I am calculating it.Oops.  Have to go to class![edit] Hmmm.  You are right about Matt getting stiffed. Consider the proposal withdrawn.I've been kinda assuming that a wizard's intelligence is going to be equal to his level at epic levels; so Matt will have an intelligence of 50 at 50th level (15 start + 5 inherent + 12 level up, +18 headband, assuming level cubed x 100 gp wealth and about 25% of base wealth in that headband.)  His DCs are going to be 30 + spell level without Heightening.  So 37 for a finger of death.  Everything can save vs that; even the lowly black slaad saves on a 7 or better.  He'd be better off using a no save spell like polar ray, or an esoteric spell like one of the power words or something.  In particular, even if he uses all his AMCs on Heightens, he will still not be able to affect a KR 50 creature with a base save of 50; it succeeds on everything but a 1.It might be we are scaling things wrong.  Maybe we shouldn't be multiplying UK's numbers by 2/3.  A lot of his CRs are equal to WotC's and we don't multiply *them* by 2/3.  Then... let's see.  If a mature red dragon is CR 34 (I'm going by v4 of the appendix), that means it is a moderate (15-25% resources) encounter for a 34th level party.  Or a quite tough encounter for a CR 17 party (they have to rest afterwards, and somebody might die).   Or a 16th level party with elite ability scores.  Does that match your experience?  A CR 14 marut would be a moderate encounter for a 13th level party with elite scores.  That's pretty close to the truth, isn't it?We might have to make a new list of sample monsters (with hit points and saves) to use as benchmarks.  If we don't multiply by 2/3 then all the saves will be more reasonable; the system might not even be broken after all.  At least it will be less broken.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That'll be my new proposal; using UK's CRs as written, and have them be the benchmark.  Of course that means that a 50th level party will find a CR 100 boss monster to be a tough challenge (like a 17th level group faced by a mature red dragon or a lavawight or something), but possibly defeatable.Do you have volume 1 of the IH:Bestiary?[edit2] Ok, I have 681 creatures on a spreadsheet sorted according to UK's CR.  What CRs should I give samples of with hp, HD and saves?  The creatures range from the tiny monstrous centiped (CR 1/16) to the mighty neutronium golem (CR 9721).  Though there is really one a fairly continuous sampling of monsters up to CR 130 or so.  After that there are lots of gaps.</blockquote>

Verification