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

[Henry]

Gentlemen, let's please post without insults to one another. We can discuss this without insults to intelligence, maturity, or anything else.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

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

The way I see it is this:
The ability scores from rolled ability scores should not be counted. Everything else should.

If two character roll a 14 for a stat, but one of them has a +4 modifier, those 0.4CR should count. Especially if you want to use CR as ECL.
It's that simple, IMO.

The 3-18 range is a luck factor IMO, but of course it's possible to calculate each and every ability score for exact measurement. I just don't bother. Let's face it, no PC suffers from rolling scores, they basically always have superior scores. I let it be at that, the PC' often need that extra edge.

So Wulf is right, you don't have to count ability scores. I don't and it works fine for me.

So lets please stop the flaming, guys.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If two character roll a 14 for a stat, but one of them has a +4 modifier, those 0.4CR should count. Especially if you want to use CR as ECL.

It is simply amazing to me that someone from your side of the argument would finally just say that flat out-- although equally amazing that it took this long to finally hear it in plain terms.

One guy rolls a 14 for a stat, and it has no effect on the CR/EL relationship.

Another guy adds +4 to his 10 score and suddenly it does count.

Why in the world does a person who rolls POORLY, then adds a template to bring him up to the EXACT SAME STATS as his buddy who rolls better, have a HIGHER CR?!?!?!?

How can you possibly maintain that such a system has any semblance of design balance?

The 3-18 range is a luck factor IMO, but of course it's possible to calculate each and every ability score for exact measurement. I just don't bother. Let's face it, no PC suffers from rolling scores, they basically always have superior scores. I let it be at that, the PC' often need that extra edge.

This is a complete different, and completely acceptable, position. Saying, "I don't bother counting ability scores, because the PCs deserve that edge," is not at all the same thing as saying "Ability scores don't count."

Higher ability scores WILL affect the CR/EL balance. It's that simple. It's not even remotely debatable. If you have higher ability scores, any given encounter is EASIER for you than your "unlucky" buddy who did not roll well.

If you believe in tracking that kind of thing, the system is created such that you can do so.

If you don't want to do it, 1 Character Level = 1 CR is the way to go.

I hope this ends the debate, though I have to admit I am sorely tempted to run Anubis' scenario, giving each of the characters involved +2 CR (10 free bonus feats each, all Skill Focus, of course) so we can try to show "Proof Positive!" that feats shouldn't count, either...

Wulf

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

It is simply amazing to me that someone from your side of the argument would finally just say that flat out-- although equally amazing that it took this long to finally hear it in plain terms.

One guy rolls a 14 for a stat, and it has no effect on the CR/EL relationship.

Another guy adds +4 to his 10 score and suddenly it does count.

Why in the world does a person who rolls POORLY, then adds a template to bring him up to the EXACT SAME STATS as his buddy who rolls better, have a HIGHER CR?!?!?!?

How can you possibly maintain that such a system has any semblance of design balance?

Because this comment was to be read in conjunction with the part about the 'luck factor'.

But you make a really good point with the template = higher CR example. So I would say, for 100% accuracy, ability scores should count. I do prefer the 1 lvl = CR 1, though.

This is a complete different, and completely acceptable, position. Saying, "I don't bother counting ability scores, because the PCs deserve that edge," is not at all the same thing as saying "Ability scores don't count."

Higher ability scores WILL affect the CR/EL balance. It's that simple. It's not even remotely debatable. If you have higher ability scores, any given encounter is EASIER for you than your "unlucky" buddy who did not roll well.

Speaking of how higher ability scores will affect CR/EL, I seem to remember that you told me in a thread about Grim Tales, that you wouldn't give Action Points a CR modifier, because only PCs have them.

How does this relate to your point that higher ability scores should affect CR? Surely, this edge that PCs will have on their NPC/monster opponents should count for something? Otherwise it's the same as saying that only PCs get 10 bonus feats, therefore they don't add to CR.

I hope this ends the debate, though I have to admit I am sorely tempted to run Anubis' scenario, giving each of the characters involved +2 CR (10 free bonus feats each, all Skill Focus, of course) so we can try to show "Proof Positive!" that feats shouldn't count, either...

Wulf

Relax, man

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Speaking of how higher ability scores will affect CR/EL, I seem to remember that you told me in a thread about Grim Tales, that you wouldn't give Action Points a CR modifier, because only PCs have them.

The balance concern with ability scores isn't so much Player vs. Monster, it's Player vs. Player.

It's a matter of ensuring an equal playing field so that the GM can be certain that a given encounter is balanced regardless of party makeup.

Because all PCs get action points, there is an equivalence of power from PC to PC that preserves the integrity of the EL relationship vs. monsters.

Hope that answers your question!

Oh... and I am always relaxed. Good thing, too, I hear the makers of Ritalin are having a hard time keeping up with recent demand.

Wulf

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Because all PCs get action points, there is an equivalence of power from PC to PC that preserves the integrity of the EL relationship vs. monsters.

Hope that answers your question!

I understand what you mean, but some encounters will just not be as tough as they would have been without Action Points, whether or not th PCs are balanced against eachother? The issue is minor, I'm just being nitpicky.

Any news on Grim Tales BTW?

always[/i] relaxed. Good thing, too, I hear the makers of Ritalin are having a hard time keeping up with recent demand.

Wulf

lol!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I understand what you mean, but some encounters will just not be as tough as they would have been without Action Points, whether or not th PCs are balanced against each other? The issue is minor, I'm just being nitpicky.

The point is to be able to standardize an encounter for any given group of PCs. Since all PCs have action points, there is no discrepancy from group to group against a given encounter at a listed EL.

You could, I admit, run into trouble if the GM is awarding too many Action Points for bringing Tasty Snacks, and one group of PCs has more than 5 + 1/2 level in APs as a result.

Overall, don't forget the strength of 1 Character Level = 1 CR. I have never advocated against this short-cut. (Arguing against "ability scores don't count" is not the same as arguing "You must count ability scores" or vice versa).

Grim Tales is also based on d20 Modern, so there are other factors working against the PCs (lower saves across the board, lower AC, lower Massive Damage Threshold, and less magic overall) that more than make up for the "gimme" of Action Points. Even including APs, Grim Tales will err on the side of "unbelievably friggin deadly."

It's not, after all, "Happy-Fluffly-Lots-of-Loot-for-No-Risk Tales."

It will be going to print before the end of the month and available on shelf around the end of March / early April. Shortly following this will be our first Adventure Supplement, Slavelords of Cydonia, with encounters designed and balanced using UKs system!

You can, of course, play the adventure in a regular D&D game, or your d20 Modern game, and if you use the 4d6 method for generating ability scores, you might even survive!

Wulf

 

[Upper_Krust]

My computer has been dead for 4 days

Hi all!

My computer has been dead for the past four days and I have only got things working again 10 minutes ago.

I haven't read over the fullness of the new posts as yet - but rest assured I will do so and reply in due course (probably tomorrow morning to be fair, its been a long day).

Later.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

One guy rolls a 14 for a stat, and it has no effect on the CR/EL relationship.

Another guy adds +4 to his 10 score and suddenly it does count.

Why in the world does a person who rolls POORLY, then adds a template to bring him up to the EXACT SAME STATS as his buddy who rolls better, have a HIGHER CR?!?!?!?

Hey Wulf.

Again, I understand what you're saying. Why is one 14 more valuable than another 14? Look at it like this ... the guy with a +4 modifier has the potential to break out of the normal 3-18 range. The guy who rolled the 14 naturally does not. This is how the Challenge Rating system has always worked. We give Challenge Ratings to every ability, regardless of whether they come into game play, because they have the "potential" to be used in an advantageous way.

Sure, the first guy from your example *could* apply the +4 modifier to an attribute score of 10 (and thereby equal his buddy who rolled a 14 naturally). But in a case like that, the first guy *chose* to squander his potential. He's didn't have to. There's nothing stopping him from applying that +4 modifer to his highest naturally rolled attribute, let's say a 16, and making it 20. Once again, its the potential to use an ability advantageously that matters.

I hope that helps.

Kolja

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Hey Wulf.

Again, I understand what you're saying. Why is one 14 more valuable than another 14? Look at it like this ... the guy with a +4 modifier has the potential to break out of the normal 3-18 range. The guy who rolled the 14 naturally does not.

One guy rolls 4d6 and gets 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, and 14. (You must admit, not an impossible or even unlikely event. We're not even talking all 3s and 18s here.)

His buddy rolls 4d6 and gets 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10. (Again, not unlikely.)

At 1st level, Player A is CR1. (Not counting ability scores.)

Player B applies a template for +4 to every ability score.

Player B is now the EQUIVALENT in every way to Player A.

Player A is CR1, yet Player B is CR 3.4?

This is how the Challenge Rating system has always worked. We give Challenge Ratings to every ability, regardless of whether they come into game play, because they have the "potential" to be used in an advantageous way.

No, the way the Challenge Rating system has always worked is to design balanced encounters for a standard 4-player party assuming the standard array-- unless you have some insight into WOTC's design process that I don't (which I highly doubt...)

How does Player A's straight-14 array have less "potential" than Player B's straight-14 array? He rolled his stats, so they have less potential in an encounter?

So Player A is CR1, and Player B is CR 3.4, all other stats being equal. So Player B can somehow trounce Player A? Statistically equal, yet one is EL1 and the other is EL8.

Because "rolls" don't count, but templates do.

Oh, yeah, it's all making sense to me now.


Wulf