Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 4739868" data-attributes="member: 94">&lt;snip&gt;Easy answer.The value of a feat is the same in both systems: +0.2 CR.Because he wants to approximate the value of each class level, Craig averages the value of that feat across 20 levels-- ergo, +0.01. I follow his lead here exactly.So:If you want to add 10 feats to a pit fiend, straight up, sure: you could just add +2.0 CR.Using the Trailblazer method, if you added twenty class levels of fighter to a pit fiend, which includes 11 feats as class features, you'd add (20)*(.11) = +2.2 CR.You can see from this that if you add an odd number of fighter class levels to a creature, using the 0.01 value that is averaged across 20 levels, you'll shortchange your monster a little bit.Craig's method provides you with a bit of short-hand by averaging the value of every class feature into 1 HD, but if you are more comfortable adding up the discreet CR value of every single ability you add, brute force, you can do that.That is far too noodley for most GMs to deal with however, with greatly diminishing returns in terms of &quot;accuracy.&quot; Trailblazer prioritizes speed in prep-time and a &quot;close enough&quot; philosophy.EDIT: To answer your larger question, the primary deviations between my numbers and Craig's are as follows:1) Remove the value of skill points in monster HD. (Monsters shouldn't pay CR for something that has no combat value.)2) Remove the value of class vs. cross-class skills entirely.3) Remove the value of weapon and armor proficiencies entirely.4) Complete revaluation of spellcasting ability. Craig's version included the number of spells on each class spell list in the CR value-- which is patently silly, since everytime a new sourcebook of spells was released, it would require you to revalue the cleric, druid, wizard, and any other class that has easy access to &quot;all spells.&quot;Couple 2, 3, and 4 together and you can somewhat summarize my changes as, &quot;Diversity of combat options does not equal greater CR.&quot;I assume &quot;best case&quot; for both PCs and monsters-- they'll use the best of whatever is available.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 4739868, member: 94"] <snip> Easy answer. The value of a feat is the same in both systems: +0.2 CR. Because he wants to approximate the value of each [I]class level[/I], Craig averages the value of that feat across 20 levels-- ergo, +0.01. I follow his lead here exactly. So: If you want to add 10 feats to a pit fiend, straight up, sure: you could just add +2.0 CR. Using the Trailblazer method, if you added twenty [I]class levels[/I] of fighter to a pit fiend, which includes 11 feats as class features, you'd add (20)*(.11) = +2.2 CR. You can see from this that if you add an odd number of fighter class levels to a creature, using the 0.01 value that is averaged across 20 levels, you'll shortchange your monster a little bit. Craig's method provides you with a bit of short-hand by averaging the value of every class feature into 1 HD, but if you are more comfortable adding up the discreet CR value of every single ability you add, [I]brute force[/I], you can do that. That is far too noodley for most GMs to deal with however, with greatly diminishing returns in terms of "accuracy." Trailblazer prioritizes speed in prep-time and a "close enough" philosophy. EDIT: To answer your larger question, the primary deviations between my numbers and Craig's are as follows: 1) Remove the value of skill points in monster HD. (Monsters shouldn't pay CR for something that has no combat value.) 2) Remove the value of class vs. cross-class skills entirely. 3) Remove the value of weapon and armor proficiencies entirely. 4) Complete revaluation of spellcasting ability. Craig's version included the number of spells on each class spell list in the CR value-- which is patently silly, since everytime a new sourcebook of spells was released, it would require you to revalue the cleric, druid, wizard, and any other class that has easy access to "all spells." Couple 2, 3, and 4 together and you can somewhat summarize my changes as, "Diversity of combat options does not equal greater CR." I assume "best case" for both PCs and monsters-- they'll use the best of whatever is available. [/QUOTE]

Verification