NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3146590" data-attributes="member: 141">UK has increased his estimate of the value of equipment since a few years ago.  At the moment he says it is worth 1/3 of a character's CR.  This is especially important if you allow monstrous PCs; then you use those high CR values and add +50% for allowing PC level equipment over and above the equipment specified in the Monster Manual entry.  These CRs are the ones labeled "silver rule" in the chart.  How about if I call them "silver".  And as for an abbreviation... maybe just Ag?    (We can pretend official CRs are "chromium", and this is the "chromatic scale")Matt's save DCs are 22 + spell level with GSF, 20 + spell level without.I'm not sure what you mean.  Do you want to use those numbers up to a certain point, and then scale them thereafter?  For instance, you could keep the numbers up to Ag 10, and thereafter convert them according to 10 + 0.6* (Ag -10).  That would make a Ag 33 creature (a gloom, say) CR 24.  A very old gold dragon would be CR 34.  And so on.Or do you mean something else?With a 60% scaling factor, hp will increase at a rate of about 20 hp per CR.  The rate at which Will and Fort saves will increase is about 80% of CR.  Reflex saves don't increase as quickly; about 60% of CR.  I don't know how fast save DCs from monsters will increase; they are usually HD based, and it seems as if HD increases at least as fast as CR, maybe twice as fast.  Assuming monster ability scores increase as well, I'd guestimate that save DCs increase at about 0.6 to 1.2 times the rate of increase in CR.  Probably 0.8 * CR would be fair.  For PCs who get +1 to their saves every two levels it means that magical protection will have to improve fairly regularly; another +1 every 2 or 3 levels.[edit] Oh, and UK recognizes that people will use WotC official wealth guidelines instead of his own formula.  I don't think he advocates it anymore, although I think it is superior.  At very high levels (just off the charts- probably around 43rd level or so) his formula is level squared x 10,000, but that is for determining the value of artifacts possessed by 100th level characters.The ELH wealth charts look vastly inflated, but if you consider the x10 "epic surcharge" on most items it might not be too bad.  Dunno.  I'd say stick with the level cubed x 100 formula, at least until you want to start pricing artifacts.original post starts hereI agree with the "non-fixation" sentiment.  Saving throws and SR are irrelevant for fighter types; they are more concerned with AC, hp, and attack bonuses.  Maybe regeneration/fast healing/DR.  Ideally there should be monsters that call forth different capacities; some can be dealt with by the spellcasters, others require melee specialists to handle.  In one case the fighter-types protect the spellcasters, in the other the spellcasters provide support (especially transportation, cures and buffing) to the fighter-types.  Opponents won't always be single monsters either; there will be hordes of attackers, waves of attackers, shoot and run types, etc..  So we shouldn't fixate on a particular type of spell (an individual effecting spell).  There should also be creatures that require "thinking outside the box."  Diplomacy, deceit, and politics.  Or the finding of the McGuffin that foils the enemy's plans.Still, there should be a dialectic between what we are going to put out there to challenge the party and the resources we are going to give to the party to meet those challenges.  The metallic number is a way of saying what a party of a certain level is likely to face.  The rules governing epic spellcasters (of all types) give in general terms what they are likely to be able to dish out.  In a majority of cases there should be a certain rough parity between the challenge the party is expected to face and the resources they have to face it with.I'd say we are trying to find a reflective equilibrium between these two sets of considerations.  We get a rough idea of what spellcasters can do (based on Matt), and get some kind of handle on how to assign a metallic number to threats that gives parity.  Then we use the appropriate threats for different levels (determined by the metallic number) to scale the magic system properly; how fast Matt can pile on AMCs, say, but particularly the rules for Jake's spellcasting.  This might lead to a refinement of other rules; treasure, say, or how epic saves work.  Or a better determination of the metallic number.  If Matt and Jake get out of balance we'll tinker with one, and then the other, until things settle down.  And so on; until the various aspects of the rule set are in equilibrium with each other.A thought about saves and SR; they make some monsters especially difficult for low level creatures, but a push-over once the party's level gets high enough.  This is clearest for SR; something goes from impossible to autosucceed in 20 levels.  With save-or-die spells the level range is greater, but if a 36th level party is facing challenges from CR 18 to CR 60, then they'll experience this transition too.I've noticed in my graphs that a lot of the post 100Ag monsters screw up the scale; I think I'm going to remove at least the neutronium and orichalcum constructs.  And Alabaster.  And the devastation vermin; they are crazy outliers on my CR/HD charts.  Maybe some others.  And I'll put in a column that defines this new approximation to CR (reduce Ag values by 40% of the amount they exceed 10).  Maybe Palladium (Pd)?</blockquote>

Verification