Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 4740818" data-attributes="member: 326">Hey Wulf! <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Been a while, hope you have been keeping well?Well, almost, I revised it to +0.167. Of course that added an extra layer of math to the final tally, so its not as fast as it could be.Agreed. It is a very pernickity process at the best of times.I should point out that there were three notable flaws in my original version.1. The aforementioned measure of a single feat (which, for brevity you could possibly ignore, however, to do so means you'll be balancing games 2. CR/EL relativity. This is the big mistake I made with versions 1-5. The flaw was in forgetting the diminishing returns of a group of weaker opponents versus a tougher opponent.ie. When the 4 PCs face a bunch of 20 Orcs as the orcs get whittled down their combat effectiveness will be reduced. This wasn't factored into the initial CR x2 = EL +4 equation. So the revised equation is CR x1.5 = EL +4.3. Theres a problem in how I determined iterative attacks. Off the top of my head I can't recollect exactly what the problem is but I remember revising it about 18 months ago, when I was still into 3E. I'd say thats the best way, unless you are a masochist. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Some good ideas, I'll take them onboard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Upper_Krust, post: 4740818, member: 326"] Hey Wulf! :) Been a while, hope you have been keeping well? Well, almost, I revised it to +0.167. Of course that added an extra layer of math to the final tally, so its not as fast as it could be. Agreed. It is a very pernickity process at the best of times. I should point out that there were three notable flaws in my original version. 1. The aforementioned measure of a single feat (which, for brevity you could possibly ignore, however, to do so means you'll be balancing games 2. CR/EL relativity. This is the big mistake I made with versions 1-5. The flaw was in forgetting the diminishing returns of a group of weaker opponents versus a tougher opponent. ie. When the 4 PCs face a bunch of 20 Orcs as the orcs get whittled down their combat effectiveness will be reduced. This wasn't factored into the initial CR x2 = EL +4 equation. So the revised equation is CR x1.5 = EL +4. 3. Theres a problem in how I determined iterative attacks. Off the top of my head I can't recollect exactly what the problem is but I remember revising it about 18 months ago, when I was still into 3E. I'd say thats the best way, unless you are a masochist. ;) Some good ideas, I'll take them onboard. [/QUOTE]

Verification