Revised Challenge Ratings/Encounter Levels (pdf)

[seasong]

This is your first mistake. Constitution is almost ALWAYS the second highest stat. Anything else is pretty stupid.

Hey Anubis, thanks for defending my example . Although the word "stupid" is too harsh for the situation - DEX can be useful, just not necessarily in this context.

I've found that wizards tend to pick CON or CHA, myself - CHA is the "forward thinking" wizard, however, who plans on getting hisself a meat shield cohort at 6th.

I don't know ANYONE who takes Spell Focus (enchantment), because Spell Focus (evocation), Spell Focus (transmutation), and Spell Focus (necromancy) serve the wizard much better. Unless he is an Enchanter, which isn't the common scenario.

Spell focus (abjuration) is also pretty suck, unless you house rule it to apply to dispel checks.

I would disagree, seeing as I've never known a wizard to carry a weapon he can't use just on the off-chance he'll have to be by himself and coup de grace. Also, the Sorcerer is quite unlikely to take Shield, as it is a utility defense spell and MOST Sorcerers are splat mages.

Sorry, should clarify - that's a wizard we're talking about. And I've known 'em to carry whatever their STR will allow. A spear is pretty light weight, and if the wizard/sorc knows sleep, chances are he's planning to use it.

 

[xanatos]

Originally posted by xanatos
Oh... Yes... Do you think you will publish it before or after 3.5?

The pdf version definately, the print version no.

Will you post a patch for the PDF after the revision? (like what the people at Malhavoc press have done)

 

[Anubis]

57.25% of the time. Where are you people getting your initiative calculations? I mean, it was at least close this time..

Well, for me, since it was +5 to +1, I calculated the chances of the Sorcerer rolling over 5 multiplied by the chances of the hobgoblins rolling under 15.

I take it you know an actual math formula for the chances of initiative? Care to share?

 

[seasong]

Well, for me, since it was +5 to +1, I calculated the chances of the Sorcerer rolling over 5 multiplied by the chances of the hobgoblins rolling under 15.

I take it you know an actual math formula for the chances of initiative? Care to share?

The easy way is to use a spreadsheet: have a column of 1, 2, 3, etc., and a column of 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, etc. Use an IF() function to see if one column is sufficiently higher than the other to win, and it returns a '1' if it is, '0' if it isn't. Divide the sum of the IF() functions by 400, and you've got it. You could use math, too, but this method assures accuracy - if you've got every possible roll on the spreadsheet, and you count them, you get the correct results. I did the same thing for 1d8x3 damage versus the Fort save DC.

 

[Dark Wolf 97]

'Lo Upper Krust!

I finally had a chance to reveiw version three of the appendixes.

And frankly, I'm impressed!

The new sub heading font is an easy read.

In fact the whole thing seems to be cleaned up and more....readable.

The Design Parameters section will be very useful, although most of it is common sense.

The revised magic items is again common sense. (I've been using similar rules for awhile)

The revised feats was something I suspected you were putting in this version and it is pretty good. But, a question, why remove Improved Metamagic? Was it overpowered? I think so.

Anyways much kudos on a job well done.

Well see ya later.
Keep up the good work.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Oh my. I can see the mutual admiration society between Anubis and Seasong has already begun!



Let’s take some of the steam out of that society shall we?

-----

Anubis first.

First of all, my standard array is taken directly from Mialee. So I can’t take credit for it. Moreover, Dexterity is more important than Constitution for a wizard. Let’s see now ... do I plan to take damage as a wizard (when my Hit Die is a d4) or do I plan on not getting hit in the first place. Hm. Tough choice. By your reasoning, I should play my 1st level wizard as a meat sponge. Yeah, that makes sense.



Toughness and Combat Casting? Talk about short sighted planning. Any wizard with a half a brain is going to take just as many defensive spells (to prevent damage) as offensive spells (to inflict damage) and any wizard worth their salt is going to max out their Concentration ranks. Moreover, taking a 5 foot step back before casting negates the need for a Concentration saving throw more often than not.

Taking Spell Focus (enchantment) is a fine choice. It follows in the footsteps of many a mind controller. A perfectly viable concept for any wizard.

Sorcerers who take the splat route would be hugely foolish to take more than a small handful of offensive spells. Intelligent sorcerers leave plenty of room for neck-saving spells like shield. Please, if you are going to quote popular opinion, at least choose the opinions that make sense.

Improved Initiative is no less standard for wizards than it is for rogues who want to get their Sneak Attack in first. Reacting first is crucial for wizards trying to getting off that defensive spell before combat begins. Fighters? I haven’t met a fighter yet who took Improved Initiative at 1st or 2nd level. They’re usually too busy trying to qualify for a prestige class.

As debates go, I’ve lost nothing. You have so far affirmed very little or nothing.

Most combat begins within 30 feet? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You are attempting to pigeon hole something that cannot be quantified. Encounters can start at many different ranges; 30 feet is only advantageous for melee characters. Non-melee characters are going to widen that distance every time.
Perspective starts with seeing the big picture Anubis. Start there.

-----

Seasong.

This wizard is tweaked for charming and mind control. Not simply casting sleep. As wizards go, he will be quite formidable in that capacity at both high and low levels. Don’t judge a school by the number of spells in it. Those enchantment spells are game-turners. How you can rationalize that a charm/mind controlling wizard will not help a party is beyond me. There is more than one way to defeat your enemies. It just takes a little imagination. Greater Spell Focus (enchantment) would be another choice.

Not sure why your hobgoblin has a Strength bonus with his longsword. Typical hobgoblin Strength is 11.

As per Improved Initiative, see above. Improved Initiative makes more sense for wizards than it does for fighters. Going first is not as important to fighters, precisely because they can usually soak up the damage of whatever creature reacts first; wizards cannot, even with (of all wasteful feats) Toughness. So feel free to tweak your standard hobgoblins with it. I’ll be keeping Improved Initiative.

Again, Improved Initiative helps the wizard get off their defensive spell. Hardly the “specialized situation” you claim it to be.

You keep speaking of attacks of opportunity like they happen all the time. Once again, see the above 5-foot step rule. This will negate attacks of opportunity in most cases.

As per shield, it will be cast any time the wizard wins Initiative (ambush or no). Like I said, get those defensive spells off first. It’s right there in my example, so I’m not sure why you’re asking.

You say an ambush is worth less ECL? Well if you had said that sooner, I would have agreed immediately. Remember, this debate is predicated on 2400XP being too much for a single arcane spellcaster defeating two 2nd fighter hobgoblins.

My chances of doing average damage twice is ½ that of doing it the first time? Not sure where you got that math from. Average damage is average damage (every time). Even so, shield is already up and running. A wizard behind a shield spell stands a much greater chance of defeating an injured hobgoblin or two. That’s when they pull out their scribed scrolls...

 

[S'mon]

Hobgoblin Fighter-2
HP 13 (2d10 avg, +1 CON per HD)
Fort +4 (+3 class, +1 CON)
Will +0 (+0 class, +0 WIS)
Initiative +5 (+1 DEX, +4 improved initiative, weapon focus)
(Note: initiative tie, hobgoblin loses, DEX 13)
Longsword 1d8+1 (+1 STR)

This hobgoblin is not CR 2 - it's about as tough as a weakish PC Fighter-1 and looks like a typical CR1 monster to me - eg the Monster Manual gnoll warrior-1, or the DMG's elite Fighter-1. I agree with Anubis that if you want a CR2 hobgoblin fighter - ie that would be a moderate challenge for 4 level 2 PCs - you need to use something like the DMG's NPC stats, although you could probably leave out some of the gear.

 

[Alzrius]

Hi U_K!

Quick question: am I misreading the document (I am looking at version 3), or is there really nothing to increase the CR of creatures based on adding divine abilities? I'm guessing this to be due to that old saying of "gods shouldn't just be monsters", yes? But even so, having that would be helpful. Is it not in there because that'd reveal too much of the rest of the book...or am I just misreading it, and it is in there? I know its not due to you wanting to wait for the ELH and D&Dg to be released, since epic monsters are mentioned in there.

Thanks!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi xanatos mate!

Yes, but remember that by changing the Heal and Harm you are creating a hole. There wasn't any Single Target Healing Spell at 7th, 8th and 9th level because Heal was absolute. But if Heal is not absolute, then there is the need for better Healing (especially when a PC can have 300/400 hp!).

Obviously I have better healing spells in the Immortals Handbook but they are likely to be found in the Magic Chapter of the book rather than an appendices for revised spells...I may even remove Mass Harm from the appendices when the time comes.

And then there is the Heal = Cure. If a single Heal doesn't completly heal a player, then he will need multiple heal, and the old problem "the cleric has to prepare only healing spells" will return (Cure Critical Wounds is quite useless at epic levels!)

Heal and Harm can now also be fully affected with Metamagic remember.

Dragons are typical example (they have a high damaging breath weapon.

Breath Weapon is already handled in both the CR factors and Design Parameters.

And then, if you want to create a complete method to calculate CR you have to consider even bad monster writer! There are new "official" monsters every month (Dungeon+Dragon+Wizard's web), plus tons of "fans created". Designing monsters is an art, calculating CR should be more a science than an art!

Of course but a few guidelines never hurt anyone.

Genius Loci? An Enslave with a DC of 53 and an half-CR of 27.
Hagunemnon (half-DC of 24) specials attacks based on Cha are 10 + 22 (half HD) + 12 = DC 44 and their Deva Critical DC is 10+16(or 17)+21(or 22)=DC 47
Hunefer (half CR = 25, with your rules for Dev. Critical): Dev. Critical DC = 10 + 12 (or 13... I always forget the rounding rules)+ 18 = DC 40
Leshay (half CR 25): Gaze Charm DC 53!
Shadow of the Void (half CR 28): DC of 37 or lose 6 perm Con, and save every round for 6 more rounds, for every hit!

All these abilities are properly rated and integrated into their revised Challenge Ratings on page 12 of the CR/EL document.

I think they are intrinsic of the monster. A flying breathing Dragon is a true dragon.

Both flight and breath weaponry is accounted for.

A walking dragon is a pet!
Especially at high levels players will have abilities to become immune to some attacks. A monster that has many different attacks can balance this (but he will lose rounds to discover the right attack). An example of this: a monster that can cast fireboll, lightening bolt, magic missile, an ice spell and a sonic spell isn't so much stronger than a monster that can cast only fireball, unless the party is immune to fire (in SAS (Silver Age Sentinel) to solve this you pay full cost only for the most powerful attack, and you pay a fixed price for each other less powerful attack (because with secondary attacks you are paying only for flexibility, not for raw power)

This is something I am still considering.

a) Epic DnD is full of Save Or Die spells! Very full... No... Wait... Fuller! This is probably because damage dealing spells at epic levels:
1) Su#k (the number of dices of damage go up slower than the combined HD and Con of monsters) (and I can even prove this... Look at Epic monsters... Their designers discovered that it was useless to give them 20d6 of breath weapon... So they gave them 2d4 of perm Con Drain... at 30 Level it's 60 hp with no save that can't be quickly repaired (beacuse Greater Restoration has a high casting time) or
2) Kill because they are multi-metamagiked (both of these are not good solutions)
So the only chance of Wizards is to bet on a single shot.
b) Being Charmed is not funny! (Especially for your party... But you can have a good time bashing your "friends"!)
c) Being put out of combat (strong paralysis, teleport somewhere else etc.) is still not very funny

"Epic Literature" isn't full of Resurrections... When a person dies he is dead, and if you want to resurrect him you have to make a big quest. In Epic Dnd to resurrect a person you have to pay 5000gp to your cleric! To balance this you die quite often if your master uses the CR suggested in the book! I'm for the "very rare resurrection".

Okay well I think you obviously have some issues with D&D itself, rather than with my system.

There is a reason because in DnD there are HPs... A single lucky shot shouldn't kill you. But Save or Die spells are much more like "real life games" where a shot can kill anyone. And the paradox is that this happens especially at higher levels, because save or die spells are high level spells! So it's easyer that a very strong hero will fall with a single shot than a weaker hero (5th-10th level) will! This isn't DnD. This is RoleMaster!

I empathise with what you are saying but there is simply no way for me to change this aspect of the game without making making an enormous amount of changes to the core rules effectively creating 4th Edition.

Yes, but you can always move a little to the left/to the right the headings!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

Will you post a patch for the PDF after the revision? (like what the people at Malhavoc press have done)

If the changes are significant, then yes.