Immortal's Handbook CR/EL Rules: Don't Count Ability Scores (Proof Positive Inside!)

[Anubis]

Great. So don't count ability scores.

Let's see...

Doing it "your way" the above party has EXACTLY the same chance of success as they would if their ability scores were straight 3's across the board, straight 10.5's, or straight 18's.

That's so obviously wrong I don't know why I bothered to post a reply...

EDIT: The solution is somewhere in the multiplication of fractional CR's, I would guess.

EDIT2: Which is not to say that you haven't correctly pointed out a problem, Anubis. For starters I think UK under-rates the trog zombie. If the SRD rates them at CR 1, by strict conversion (as opposed to adding factors), that would make them CR 1.5 in the UK system.

I am also not a big fan of his rounding methods (Table 1-1, Fractional CR Ratings). My instinct would be to always round up to the next higher value. The orc weighs in at like .922 but UK rounds him down to .5 (resulting in CR 2/3).

EDIT3: Don't forget to apply the Golden Rule to the PCs. The purpose of the golden rule is to prevent CR factors from overbalancing a creature based on its level or HD. Unless I did something wrong, that would make their CR's 2.95, 2.7, 2.45, and 2.75 respectively. Total party CR 10.85, adjusted EL 10. (Versus "don't count" method total party CR8, adjusted EL 9).


Wulf

First off, the Golden Rule wouldn't change the CRs except those over 4, and then only half what is over 4. Remember, the Golden Rule is half everything over DOUBLE the HD, not everything that's just over the HD itself.

That said, I'll shoot your little argument down quickly and effectively here. You NEVER EVER see PCs with all 3s, 10s and 11s, or 18s if you play by the core rules or by any viable variation thereof. All 3s and all 18s are as likely as winning the lottery and getting hit by lightning five consecutive times, and all 10s and 11s doesn't constitute a viable PC to begin with according to the PH and the DMG.

Like I said, MY example actually happened and would likely happen many times over the course of any long-term campaign. Your examples, well, NEVER happen, or happen so rarely as to be a non-factor. Remember, you can't account for ID10T errors on the DM's part, nor should the system account for gaming stupidity (the only way those three examples could truly happen), so as such all of your examples are invalid. Most normal PCs are more or less equal in power.

Even so, ability scores have little to no effect in the "big picture", as probably 99% of all PCs have a roughly similar set of ability scores. To demonstrate obsurdity by being obsurd, just take a Level 20 fighter with all 18s and put him against a Level 20 wizard with 10/10/10/23/10/10. The fighter has astronomically better stats but the wizard is almost guaranteed to win every single time if they fight one-on-one. At any rate, heck, a Level 1 PC with all 18s is supposedly around CR 3, but pretty much any Level 3 PC (even with 63 points worth of scores) would own him or her pretty easily. Examples include a Level 3 wizard with 8/10/12/13/10/10 and a Level 3 fighter with 16/10/10/8/8/8, both of whom are likely more useful to the party as a whole at their current power levels. So while a character with all 18s is clearly more powerful, those ability scores aren't even worth ONE level as far as power levels are concerned.

So no, ability scores shouldn't be counted. Size? Yeah, although not necessarily for the ability scores. Templates? That's the one thing I'd say yes for ability scores on, but ONLY because they aren't creatures to begin with, but rather "additions", making them a different matter altogether. Rolled stats? No. Naturally occuring stats in creatures? No. Simply apply common sense and you never have a problem.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Simply apply common sense and you never have a problem.

If you had any common sense, we wouldn't still be having this argument.

28 point buy is a "viable variation" of the core rules. Standard array is a viable variation of the core rules. Hell, elite array is a viable variation of the core rules. Your sample characters are head and shoulders above all of these.

How's about you add DR 20/bludgeoning to all of the characters, and then add SR30, and give all the characters bonus skill points-- whatever you have to do to boost them up to CR4 each.

Run your combat again.

Then come back and start screaming that DR shouldn't count, SR shouldn't count, skill points shouldn't count, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.

Your experiment proves exactly nothing-- except that perhaps UK has undercosted trog zombies.

Wulf

 

[Anubis]

If you had any common sense, we wouldn't still be having this argument.

If you had any common sense, you certainly wouldn't have started making this nasty.

I got three words for you: KISS MY ASS.

28 point buy is a "viable variation" of the core rules. Standard array is a viable variation of the core rules. Hell, elite array is a viable variation of the core rules. Your sample characters are head and shoulders above all of these.

Okay, do the following:

1) Go back and read my posts again before making assumptions you moron.
2) Read carefully the part where I explained these characters were rolled up using the standard normal method given in the book.
3) Realize that the 4d6 rolling method is the standard way above any of the point buy methods.
4) Slam your head against the wall as you realize you just proved my point.



Thank you kindly. These characters are supposedly "head and shoulders above all standard characters" (according to your warped logic that doesn't understand rolling ability scores), yet against the seven troglodyte zombies, they only achieve a TPK every single time. THEY CAN'T WIN! Do you understand now? Let me say it slowing so that you might comprehend . . .

I . . . claimed . . . ability . . . scores . . . should . . . not . . . count . . . because . . . it . . . overrates . . . PCs . . . and . . . eventually . . . bring . . . about . . . a . . . TPK . . .

You just proved my point by saying how super my PCs (who were rolled with the method given in the PH and NONE of the variants I might add) are, especially once you factor in that seven of the supposedly weak troglodyte zombie can TPK them EASILY. This wasn't PC error; they simply don't have enough power! The EL of the troglodyte zombie is at least 3 off itself, and if we went with counting PC ability scores, the group would have been far larger! Now if they can't fight seven, how the heck can they fight MORE?! Easy . . . THEY CAN'T, PERIOD!

Do you get it yet, monkey?

How's about you add DR 20/bludgeoning to all of the characters, and then add SR30, and give all the characters bonus skill points-- whatever you have to do to boost them up to CR4 each.

Run your combat again.

Then come back and start screaming that DR shouldn't count, SR shouldn't count, skill points shouldn't count, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.

Your experiment proves exactly nothing-- except that perhaps UK has undercosted trog zombies.

Wulf

If you gave troglodyte zombies a higher CR and then count my PCs' ability scores, the difference remains the same! Remember, I didn't count the ability scores of PCs when I ran this combat, meaning the PCs' EL was LOWER and thus CLOSER to that of the zombies. If you raise both, the difference remains the same! Only by raising the zombies' EL and NOT counting the ability scores of PCs do you get the correct number.

By the way, remember, this is part of and ACTUAL campaign, not testing. That makes my results more valid than any of your test crapola.

Here is my proof:

My party CRs doing it his way are 4.3 (4), 3.8 (3.5), 3.3 (3), 3.9 (3.5); that makes them CR 14 and thus (with four members) EL 16-4=12. Now let's raise the CR of the troglodyte zombies to 1.5 where it belongs. Six troglodyte zombies are now CR 9 and thus (with six members) EL 13-5=8. Hmmm . . . Six troglodyte zombies isn't much better than seven, yet this is supposedly a "moderate encounter", one that takes 25% of the party's resources . . . In actuality, this is still a freakin' TPK!

Now let's not count ability scores for the PCs . . . The PCs are now CR 8 and thus (with four members) EL 13-4=9. Now it's a "difficult encounter" and should use between 50% and 75% of the party's resources. Hmmm . . . Still not exactly right, but much closer than before! By the numbers, we can now say that, on average, a party should be able to win, but they'll have to rest and will probably lose a member in the process.

Anyway, again, checkmate. Can someone actually use REAL GAME EXAMPLES to prove me wrong? I see lots of "oh PCs with all 18s or all 3s" retardation, but not even one realistic example that could actually happen in a game. Anyone? Heh . . . I didn't think so.

Wulf Ratbane, go home, kid. You're not in my league.



Anyway, UK, I figured out a simple solution to the problem. It may overrate some select monsters, but certain overrating monsters is better than UNDERrating them, ya? Anyway, here it is:

If the final CR is lower than the total CR from HD, use the total from HD instead and then round up instead of down for the final CR. [Example: Troglodyte Zombie is CR .766 but has 1.4 CR from HD. As such, we use the 1.4 and round up for a final CR 1.5, which coincides with the acceptable number.

DMs could also use this as a "Bronze Rule" on a case-by-case basis depending on whether or not they think it is warranted.

Still, this does nothing to help things unless you AT LEAST stop counting AT LEAST the rolled ability scores of PCs.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

So you don't count ability scores. But you do count templates.

Fine, here's my "Godsblood Human" template:

+2 STR
+2 CON
+2 DEX
+2 INT
+2 WIS
+2 CHA
Darkvision

Now you tell me-- What's the value of this template?

What's the value without Darkvision?

Do you give this template away "for free" to anybody who wants to play a Godsblood Human?

Why or why not? Grasp tenuously at the threads of logic and see what you can do.

Wulf Ratbane, go home, kid. You're not in my league.

No, but you ARE on my ignore list.


Wulf

 

[Anubis]

So you don't count ability scores. But you do count templates.

Fine, here's my "Godsblood Human" template:

+2 STR
+2 CON
+2 DEX
+2 INT
+2 WIS
+2 CHA
Darkvision

Now you tell me-- What's the value of this template?

What's the value without Darkvision?

Do you give this template away "for free" to anybody who wants to play a Godsblood Human?

Why or why not? Grasp tenuously at the threads of logic and see what you can do.

CR +1.4

It's not free because it doesn't stand alone. Like having the vampire template, the lich template, or any other template, you're actually adding something to a base. It is impossible to get the same ability scores through rolling, even though there is the illusion to the contrary.

You're seeing the illusion of just getting +2 to your ability scores and ignoring the actuality. This template doesn't just give you +2 to all ability scores, it bumps THE ROLL RANGE OF THE BASE up, in this case from 3-18 to 5-20. You can't get a 20 with the base human race, therefore you're adding to the base. Additions to the base must be counted, else you get idiots (like you no doubt) who try to pull this very stunt.

That and, as I stated, templates can't stand alone. You can't have just a flat "Godsblood Human", and if you did, the ability scores are already counted. (My problem is more with any negative modifier to CR than anything. Overrating monsters is okay, underrating them kills PCs.) I would rather count no ability scores from base races, but the game can survive counting them using my "Bronze Rule" suggestion above as you'll never underrate any monster, and that's the entire point. That and never counting PCs rolled ability scores. If this was the base and not a template, seeing as I count CR and ECL as the same thing, you still have the +2 to everything counting because it's not within the rolled range.

Ability scores that adhere to the rolled range with NO MODIFIERS should NEVER count. Call it a luck factor. Call it a random factor. Call it whatever factor you like. I have proven beyond a doubt that counting those rolled scores screws things up. I can provide numerous examples where this is the case, and will do so on-demand. The facts speak for themselves, plain and simple. The range is the key factor.

Still, counting only templates and size and other inner factors and NO racial or rolled scores would work just fine. As long as you don't count the PCs' ability scores, though, and use the "Bronze Rule" as necessary, you shouldn't have any major malfunctions.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Let me start this off properly.

*Injects Anubis with twice his normal dosage of Ritalin.*

There. With that out of the way, I can now safely say that Anubis is right. Ability scores should not count.

I understand the logic of any argument that claims Upper_Krust's Challenge Rating system breaks down when applied to characters with all 3's or all 18's (and does not add in ability scores), but arguments like that ignore a few important points (which Anubis already mentioned).

If these statistics are rolled naturally, they break the bell curve of normalcy, and as such are discarded from the experiment. Moreover, using the point buy system makes all 3's or all 18's impossible. Nothing will be lower than 8 and you can only create two 18's using the high-powered campaign set of points (leaving all other scores at 8).

These are controlled standards by which character attributes are created and so they must be adopted by this experiment.

In the end, -5 to +5 simply doesn't have that great an impact on a random d20 roll. It hurts or helps respectively, but -/+25% does not make or break the bank. Only when the characters become gods should their attributes start to matter, but even then, I believe that Upper_Krust has a different Challenge Ratings methodology.

As for your template Wulf, you would count each one of those attribute bonuses. Any bonus that exceeds the basic racial bonuses. You would even count racial bonuses if their attributes modifiers did not add up to 0. That's it.

But more important than all these points is something far more nebulous. Accuracy is slippery. It has plagued these Challenge Rating threads since the beginning. Despite continued efforts and dedication to create accuracy, there is always an occasion that busts it wide open. It's inevitable. Which tells me that some chaotic detail will always escape these threads *by design*. So rather than trying to quantify that chaotic detail, accept that it will always be there.

Is the Challenge Rating system a waste of time? Hell no. Any effort that offers cold, unforgiving, mathematical figures to quantify a monster's Challenge Rating is an invaluable tool, even one with a random chaotic glitch.

Does the revision stop? No. Keep trying to catch the glitch. But I think that adding attribute bonuses into the Challenge Rating equation was a misguided attempt to do so. I think it chased a ghost that really wasn't there, and only ended up complicating the system unnecessarily.

 

[CRGreathouse]

There. With that out of the way, I can now safely say that Anubis is right. Ability scores should not count.

[...]

As for your template Wulf, you would count each one of those attribute bonuses. Any bonus that exceeds the basic racial bonuses. You would even count racial bonuses if their attributes modifiers did not add up to 0. But that's it.

This strikes me as problematic. While rolling all 18s is very unlikely with 4d6 drop low (~.00000000181%), having two players roll ability modifiers apart by 6 isn't hard. For a template that grants just that (assuming darkvision is dropped or irrelevant) and has a modifier over +1, don't you see a problem?

Imagine player 1 rolls a total modifier of +2 and player 2 rolls a total modifier of +9. (These are pretty reasonable figures for the standard method.) Now player 1 takes the godsblood template (no darkvision, ECL +1.2)...

...Player 2 has better stats, 1 more class level, and a lower ECL/CR!

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Imagine player 1 rolls a total modifier of +2 and player 2 rolls a total modifier of +9.

Then I wasn't clear enough here. I am not suggesting that the difference between "rolled" attributes be counted towards Challenge Rating. I am strictly talking about the difference between racial attributes bonuses.

Take a high elf for example. +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution. Total bonus = 0. No CR modifier.

Now take an ogre. +10 Strength, -2 Dexterity, +4 Constitution, -4 Intelligence, -4 Charisma. Total bonus = +4. Use this number to modify CR.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Then I wasn't clear enough here. I am not suggesting that the difference between "rolled" attributes be counted towards Challenge Rating. I am strictly talking about the difference between racial attributes bonuses.

Take a high elf for example. +2 Dexterity, -2 Constitution. Total bonus = 0. No CR modifier.

Now take an ogre. +10 Strength, -2 Dexterity, +4 Constitution, -4 Intelligence, -4 Charisma. Total bonus = +4. Use this number to modify CR.

+14 = +1.4
-10 = -1.0

The net result is +0.4-- same as basing on it +4 to begin with.

So you count that if it is a racial bonus, cause ability scores matter.

But you don't count it if one player "rolls" that, cause ability scores don't matter.

I don't understand the inconsistency of the counter argument, here.


Wulf

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

As entertaining as it is watching Anubis' astonishingly juvenile outbursts, I probably should point out that UK's v5 document does not stray from the 1 Character Level = 1 CR paradigm.

If you don't want to count ability scores, you don't have to.

If you only want to count templates (which includes racial modifiers), you can do that too.

And if you are wondering why the character who rolled straight 12's (the top of the bell curve) performs slightly better than the character who rolled straight 10's (the bottom of the bell curve) you'll know; and if you can't figure out why the party of 4d6's with straight 15's or higher is waltzing through encounters that are designed according to the CORE RULES assumption of standard array, you'll know that, too.

Wulf