Revised Challenge Ratings/Encounter Levels (pdf)

[S'mon]

(U_K here)

kUpper_Krust alert!

I just tripped across Table 1–3. Don't know why I missed it before. If Twink (at CR1/EL1) defeats those two hobgoblins (at CR2 each/EL7 together) with the ease of my examples, he is going to earn a whopping 38400 XP with your system.

Actually he would earn 2400 EXP.

1st-level EXP 300 x 8 (EL +6)

If he already has 600 XP like I've been saying, he just flew from 1st to 9th level (heck, even without 600 XP).

More like 1st to 2nd, and thats provided the DM rated it at its highest CR and didn't impose any situational modifiers for an easy (?) victory.

Even with the two changes I recently suggested (making the hobgoblins CR1 each/EL2 together) Twink still nets 2400 XP (flying from 1st to 3rd level) which is right back where this problem started.

All because he was alone (EL –4 according to Table 1–3).

I really think you should reconsider calculating PEL as EL. Right now, I can't see any other solution.

As I said, the ELs are correct, the EXP is correct.

The problem is the fragility of low level NPCs (and PCs) allowing for situations like this to occur.

While this is something that can be policed by the DM with situational modifiers, I will either have to extend that particular section of the rules or add a caveat (much as WotC do) reducing very low level EXP gains.

 

[S'mon]

Re: A question about Party EL and CR

Hello again! (U_K here)

Thanks for that clearing that up. I suggest putting in the final version a detailed example - showing the calculation of a Party Level, then PEL, then showing how much XP that same group would get from a specific encounter.

Will do. Thanks for the feedback mate!

 

[S'mon]

Hello! (U_K here)

Regarding PEL vs EL:

I originally got into the Twink discussion because the probabilities were wrong. In the process, I think I got lumped with the group who felt the PEL vs EL worked well at all levels, when I, personally, was undecided.

Let me repair that now .

A much better example is a single level 4 human fighter PC against a single level 3 human fighter NPC. All other things being equal, the level 4 fighter will win (although it will cost him in hit points). But at PEL 5 vs EL 7, he will get 2,400 XP for the encounter.

The NPC Fighter will be CR 2 (EL 5).

He would only get 1200 EXP.

Against that there is always the chance that a few bad dice rolls and it all ends in tears.

Now let's consider a level 20 fighter versus a level 15 fighter; the level 20 fighter is going to win again, although it will still cost him in hit points. And the PEL is 14 versus an EL 14: 12,000 XP.

That seems a bit off when you're stronger than the opponent.

I think you meant to put EL 16 for the 15th-level Fighter (with PC equipment).

A 15th-level NPC would be CR 13.

And while I don't mind that kind of thing at the lower levels (where fast advancement is, to my mind, a good thing), it hurts at the higher levels where it continues to apply.

Though one or two bad dice rolls and the 15th-level Fighter (with PC equipment lets remember) could defeat the 20th-level Fighter.

As another example, a cleric 5 and fighter 5 could fight a single level 4 fighter, and get 1,200 XP each. And if the fighter did most of the fighting, followed up by some healing from the cleric, they could do this a few times a day before low hit points forced them to stop... and then they could probably do some double-teaming together for 1 or 2 more times - talk about an XP machine!

I could envision this happening once, or at most twice before your luck runs out and the 4th-level Fighter flukes a crit or somesuch.

Also remember that a 4th-level NPC Fighter would be CR 3 so the EXP would be 750 each.

 

[S'mon]

Re: Freaky XP at Low levels

People have pointed out that the system produces wonky XP at very low levels.

The EXP is right. The problem is the fragility of low level characters in general.

Of course this works both for and against the PCs, in that a bit of bad luck and they are just as dead.

The DMG might have the solution. If you look at experience table on page 166, 1st to 3rd level characters all receive the same XP.

I would suggest, for levels 1-20, referring the user to that experience chart, using PEL for Level, and enemy EL for CR, and recommending the formula only for higher levels. The XP totals for all but the low levels should be the same, since UK's system is based on the XP progression from that table.

Thats what I was also thinking might solve any perceived problems.

I'll consider it over the next week.

 

[S'mon]

Okay I am rushing through these...

I'd recommend using the official DMG method (substituting EL for the DMG's CR). When using fractional creatures, you calculate as if it was an EL1 creature, and then multiply XP earned by the fraction.

I'll have a go.

Method 1
Since +2 EL is equivalent to x2 opponents, just calculate XP normally and multiply the final total by x2

Method 2

Since a CR.5 creature is really CR 0 from a design POV, the CR becomes 0+2 = 2.

Results

Imagine (just for the sake of this example - since we dn't know how UK is going to resolve the low level XP totals) you get 300 xp from an EL 1 encounter.

Based on the DMG method, A CR.5 creature would therefore give 150 XP.
Applying +2 EL to that creature by the two methods I suggest:

Method 1 XP x 2 = 300.
Method 2 Since EL2 is 1 higher than EL 1, you get 1.5x the XP of an EL1 encounter, or 450 XP.

I think Method 2 is correct. The difference is because UK breaks his own progression. To get an adjusted CR of 1/2, a creature should have a calculated CR of -3; 1/4 should be -7, etc. I'm sure he has a good reason for doing it this way, though.

Darren

CR 1/2 = EL -1

Why...because doubling the number of opponents is +2, so halving them is therefore -2.

CR 1/4 = EL -3
CR 1/8 = EL -5

etc.

 

[S'mon]

I think the problem here is that:
1) you calculate average party level
2) you modify for group size
3) Calculate XP for group
4) Divide XP among group.

The group is being factored in twice (steps 2 & 4).

My suggestion: instead of giving a base award of
300xp x Level, divided among the group
the base award should be
75XP x Level each

It complicates the calculations a bit, but I think it's actually the way it's supposed to work. When he included the PEL modifer for group size, UK probably overlooked this.

Darren

Sounds interesting, and plausible.

I'll mull this over for a day or two. It would seem to solve the perceived problem without an extensive rewrite.

Appreciate the feedback all!

 

[S'mon]

P.S. Hey UK, hows gencon? Having fun?

It starts today and I'm not there yet because I'm replying in this forum.

 

[S'mon]

Hello mate! (U_K here)

In the standard DMG system, you use average party level to determine XP, then divide XP by the number of characters. So, if there is only one character, he gains 4x the XP that a group of 4 gains. However, the DMG includes no explicit system for deciding what challenges are appropriate for groups that differ from 4-5 members.
UK's system gives a means of doing that (table 1-3), by modifying PEL. But since PEL is then used to calculate XP, a single character already gains 4x the XP of a standard group. There is no need to then divide by group size (applying that modifier twice, resulting in a single character getting 16x the standard group).

Example
In standard DMG system, a group of 4 10th level characters against a CR10 monster will gain 750xp each. If there were 8 characters, they would gain 375xp.
In UK's system a PEL 10 group of 4 characters against an EL 10 critter would also gain 750 XP. (When PEL = EL, gain 300 x level / number of characters) But if there were 8 characters, their PEL would be raised to 12 (giving 150 x level = 1500), and then they would divide among 8 people (187.5).

So, since the standard XP awards are based on the total being divided between 4 characters, the XP awards listed in table 1-5 should be divided by 4, and explicitly stated as being an individual award.

Darren

I also find myself agreeing with your recent revelation.

I do seem to be calculating the same thing twice. DOH!

Glad we got that sorted and now I can go to Gencon.

Appreciate the feedback all! Couldn't have done it without you.

Not sure if I will be on the boards at all over the next few days while at Gencon (?). Normal service will however resume as of Monday night.

In the meantime if anyone wants to put Demiurges suggestions through their paces (and save me the trouble of doing it on Monday ) then by all means go ahead.

 

[S'mon]

Re: Power Comparisons

One more before I go...

The Power Comparison table (Table 1-4) uses the same classifications as in the DMG, but I'm wondering if the relationship is really as decsribed, in UK's system.

According to table 1-4, a creature of EL+4 above the PEL is a Difficult encounter - "virtually equal to the PCs in power."

Take a group of 10th level characters (PEL14). An EL18 encounter would be the upper end of Difficult for them, apparently roughly equal in power.
4 NPCs of 10th level would work out as EL17, and since NPCs are weaker than PCs this seems OK.
6 NPCs of the same level would be EL18, and that is probably OK. So far, so good.
But then, 3 14th level NPCs are also EL18, and I think that would be a very difficult fight - and may not be winnable.

A single NPC of 20th level (CR18) with a 14th level sidekick (+12.5% of 18 = 2.25) gives an EL 18 encounter.
If the BBEG dumped the follower, he could be of level 23-26 (Multiplied by .9 for NPC equipment).
I think both of these two examples are very likely to lead to TPK.

I'm not saying the system is broken, but I am concerned that the difference in power between characters as EL rises might be a lot higher than people are used to with the standard CR system and that changing that descriptive table might be called for.

Darren

EL +4 is a 50/50 encounter.

The outcome would hang in the balance as it were.

But there may be something to your claims, I appreciate all constructive feedback, so if you see anything that looks 'wrong' let me know. Thanks.

 

[seasong]

Originally posted by Upper Krust as S'Mon
Actually he would earn 2400 EXP.

1st-level EXP 300 x 8 (EL +6)

For all intents and purposes, it looks like this should be PEL +10:

Twink: Level 1. Alone. EL 1, -4 for being alone = PEL -3
Hobgob: Level 2. EL 5. Two of them = EL 7
Difference = +10

The XP I count for that is 9,600, which is good enough to jump from 1st to 4th, and be 400 XP away from 5th.

Now, on page 1, it tells us that a negative CR turns into a fractional CR. That is, a CR -3 becomes CR 1/16th. It does not specify that this also applies to EL (or PEL), however, and throughout the rules we are told that CR and EL are two different things.

On Table 1-1A, then, we get to how to calculate EL from CR. Twink the Wizard's CR is definitely 1, so that gives him an EL of 1. Then, on Table 1-3, we are told that being alone drops his PEL by -4.

At no point are we told that there is a minimum PEL of 0(remember, don't treat or assume that EL/PEL is like CR!), or that negative PELs should be translated into fractions, etc. Nor does it necessarily make much sense to. A level 1 party of 4 who kill a single CR 1/16th ant should get XP for defeating a PEL -4 threat (19 XP each), not a PEL -1 threat (50 XP). Otherwise, why bother to fight a CR 1/4 or 1/2 creature? You'll get the same XP from the small fries.