Revised Challenge Ratings/Encounter Levels (pdf)

[Sonofapreacherman]

When will we see a 4th edition of the pdf? Or will there just be the final version in the IH?

Don't give him any ideas!



This system still needs to be extensively play-tested and carefully examined. If we can get it standing up at every level (low-levels and high levels), without depending on arbitrary rulings, I can seriously see it revolutionizing Challenge Ratings (no joke).

Speaking of low-levels...

Upper_Krust.

After recently dungeon mastering a party from 1st to 3rd level, who primarily went up against hobgoblins, not only did it became clear to me that darkvision should not be added to their CR, but also that, yes indeed, all fractions should be rounded down (as per the popular consensus).

To be truly consistent -- and universal for that matter -- I think any creature (player character race, monster, or monster player character race) that advances "as character class" (like hobgoblins) should not add their racial ability bonuses to CR ... if their racial abilities do not exceed +0.5.

Right now you feel this way about the standard player character races. I think it should apply to all creatures.

Consequently this would make...

A 1st level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR ½.
A 2nd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 1.
A 3rd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 2.

Giving XP rewards to a party of four based on these CR values, and using all of the popular minute changes discussed in this thread, have finally felt right in the calculations.

Hold on. That could all change in a second.

Look at these numbers...

-----

Four 1st level player characters against four 1st level fighter hobgoblins awards 225 XP each.

Four 2nd level player characters against four 2nd level fighter hobgoblins awards 150 XP each.

Four 3rd level player characters against four 3rd level fighter hobgoblins awards 450 XP each.

-----

225 --> 150 --> 450.

That's a weird dip and rebound (for what should be steadily decreasing XP values).

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think that either monster *numbers* (Table 1–2) have to be calculated like character *numbers* (Table 1–3), or that character numbers have to be calculated like monster numbers. Either way, I think they have to be calculated the same way to avoid these weird anomalies.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

I just ran the same calculations by adding darkvision CR +0.2 into the equations. The results look like this.

300 XP --> 600 XP --> 450 XP

In this case, the results spike at 2nd level, rather than drop. Still not right. Which brings me back to my original conclusion. Player characters and their opponent numbers should be calculated the same way (not on different charts with different modifiers).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Sorcica mate!

I like it too.

Thanks mate!

It may be a little math intensive, though. Not sure how to handle that.

Well, as with CR/EL its relative. So you know that if Spell Penetration equals CR then you need an 11 to penetrate etc.

It also takes away the certainty for high lvl casters that they'll defeat a certain SR everytime (if I remember correctly, the wiz would beat the Barbazu's SR every time?) - which I feel is pretty cool.

I like that too.

That helps keeping SR valuable, even if it's low and static (fx a succubus's SR 12).

Good work, mate!

Glad you like it.

When will we see a 4th edition of the pdf? Or will there just be the final version in the IH?

I'm not sure yet. With the IH release now pencilled for July I may just wait until then to release V.4 ~ I am also considering sending it to Dragon magazine when I have it perfect.

I have also begun revising all the MM creatures, I'm about a third of the way through that.

BTW, any idea as to the prize of the IH? Can't wait!

I presume you mean the price...? I anticipate the first pdf section "Apotheosis" will be (approx.) $8 for 128 pages (20 of which will be the appendices).

Damn annoying that I only recently have discovered this system

Later,

Cya mate!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Don't give him any ideas!

This system still needs to be extensively play-tested and carefully examined. If we can get it standing up at every level (low-levels and high levels), without depending on arbitrary rulings, I can seriously see it revolutionizing Challenge Ratings (no joke).

I thought it already had.

Speaking of low-levels...

Upper_Krust.

After recently dungeon mastering a party from 1st to 3rd level, who primarily went up against hobgoblins, not only did it became clear to me that darkvision should not be added to their CR, but also that, yes indeed, all fractions should be rounded down (as per the popular consensus).

To be truly consistent -- and universal for that matter -- I think any creature (player character race, monster, or monster player character race) that advances "as character class" (like hobgoblins) should not add their racial ability bonuses to CR ... if their racial abilities do not exceed +0.5.

As I suggested...

Right now you feel this way about the standard player character races. I think it should apply to all creatures.

Okay. I could stipulate that under NPCs.

Consequently this would make...

A 1st level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR ½.
A 2nd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 1.
A 3rd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 2.

Giving XP rewards to a party of four based on these CR values, and using all of the popular minute changes discussed in this thread, have finally felt right in the calculations.

Hold on. That could all change in a second.

Look at these numbers...

-----

Four 1st level player characters against four 1st level fighter hobgoblins awards 225 XP each.

Four 2nd level player characters against four 2nd level fighter hobgoblins awards 150 XP each.

Four 3rd level player characters against four 3rd level fighter hobgoblins awards 450 XP each.

-----

225 --> 150 --> 450.

That's a weird dip and rebound (for what should be steadily decreasing XP values).

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think that either monster *numbers* (Table 1–2) have to be calculated like character *numbers* (Table 1–3), or that character numbers have to be calculated like monster numbers. Either way, I think they have to be calculated the same way to avoid these weird anomalies.

I'll look into it. Thanks for the feedback mate.

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

A 1st level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR ½.
A 2nd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 1.
A 3rd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 2.

Four 1st level player characters against four 1st level fighter hobgoblins awards 225 XP each.

Four 2nd level player characters against four 2nd level fighter hobgoblins awards 150 XP each.

Four 3rd level player characters against four 3rd level fighter hobgoblins awards 450 XP each.

I'm not following how you get those figures. Am I doing something wrong? Here's how I work it.

1st level party, EL1.
4 hobgoblins, EL1+4, then half the result: 150xp each.
(Unless you took CR.5 to equal CR0, and then added 4: that works).

2nd level party: EL5
Hobgobins, CR1 = EL1, then add +4 = 5.
Equal ELs, so 300xp x level divided by group = 150xp each.

3rd level party: EL 7
Hobgoblins: CL2, = EL5+4, so 450xp each.

Can you post what CR's these hobgoblins have, including fractions? I have a feeling these anomalies are occurring because of the way CR is rounded down, and it's possible they may be less problematic if some kind of fractional CR system is used below CR 4 (or at least CR2).

Darren

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Re: Optional Spell Resistance

Hi all!
All spell resistance is equal to challenge rating.
All spell penetration is equal to caster level converted directly to challenge rating.

Then you convert everything to Encounter Level and use the difference needing a base 11 to penetrate (+/- EL difference)

eg. 20th-level Wizard with spell penetration and greater spell penetration feats. SP = 24 (which converts to CR 24) = EL 19.

I think that effect of spell penetration-like bonuses should apply after converting to EL. So the above wizard would use his base CR 20, then get a bonus afterwards.

(This also means you only need to work out CR -> EL once, and you don't have two separate values for the same character.)

I also think some comparson should be made based on the original SR - CR difference (using official MM figures).
Some creatures have higher spell resistance then others, relative to their CR, and this should be preserved.
A Drider, for example, has CR7 and SR14 - so the opponents it faces will generally get through, but the occasional spell won't.
A Pit Fiend has CR16 and SR28, so 16th level casters need 12+ to get through - a tougher proposition.

So, if the Drider worked out as having CR7 and therefore EL 12, it's SR would be 19.
The Pit Fiend, with CR27 --> EL 19 would have SR of 31 (that +12 bonus).

The Feats, Spell penetration, etc, have a larger effect in this system, so perhaps should provide only have the bonus (+1 for basic Spell Penetration.
So, a 20th level wizard (EL18) would add +18 to SR checks; if he had Spell Penetration and Great Spell Penetration, he would add +20.

One problem is how SR is then factored to CR. My initial idea would be that it increases EL by one. Which we can reverse engineer to find the CR modifier.

With this suggestion, you could still use the original score, since it does apply in determining the final rating.

Barbazu = CR 11 = EL 14
Pit Fiend = CR 27 = EL 19
GW Red Dragon = CR 56 = EL 24
Atropal = CR 90 = EL 26
Hecatonchiere = CR 126 = CR 28

The 20th-level wizard needs:

6 to affect Barbazu (75% chance)
11 to affect Pit Fiend (50% chance)
16 to affect GW Red Dragon (25% chance)
18 to affect Atropal (15% chance)
20 to affect Hecatonchiere (5% chance)

These figures become
Barbazu = CR 11 = EL 14 => (SR23-CR7 = +14) = SR 28
Pit Fiend = CR 27 = EL 19 => (SR28-CR16 = +12) = SR31
GW Red Dragon = CR 56 = EL 24 => (SR32-CR25) = SR31
Atropal = CR 90 = EL 26 => (SR42-CR30 = +12) = SR38
Hecatonchiere = CR 126 = CR 28=> (SR70-CR57) = SR41


The 20th-level wizard (with Great SP) needs:

8 to affect Barbazu (65% chance)
11 to affect Pit Fiend (50% chance)
11 to affect GW Red Dragon (50% chance)
18 to affect Atropal (15% chance)
21 to affect Hecatonchiere (5% chance)

The only one of these which is significantly affected over your figues is the dragon. But in the dragon and lesser cases, the chance is reduced from the standard rules, so having a 15+ required for the dragon doesn't seem justified.
Also, that Drider.
A CR7 Drider would be EL12. The 20th level wizard would actually fail to penetrate on 3 or less.
Under my suggestion, it's SR of 19 only allows a fail on a 1, as it would be under the normal rules.

Personally I really like both solutions, brings back a 1st Ed. dynamic.

I'm not over-keen on the "base 11" mechanic: it's extra arithmetic, and it's not intuitive. I think the 3e version of a set number that you roll and add another number to beat is easier.

Darren

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Re: Optional Spell Resistance

Hiya mate!

I think that effect of spell penetration-like bonuses should apply after converting to EL. So the above wizard would use his base CR 20, then get a bonus afterwards.

(This also means you only need to work out CR -> EL once, and you don't have two separate values for the same character.)

I thought of this initially myself but it makes the Spell Penetration feats and similar divine abilities much too powerful I think and they unbalance actually gaining Spell Resistance (from feats and deific abilities).

I also think some comparson should be made based on the original SR - CR difference (using official MM figures).

If the DM so wishes.

Some creatures have higher spell resistance then others, relative to their CR, and this should be preserved.
A Drider, for example, has CR7 and SR14 - so the opponents it faces will generally get through, but the occasional spell won't.
A Pit Fiend has CR16 and SR28, so 16th level casters need 12+ to get through - a tougher proposition.

It would be easy to instigate weak-regular-tough spell resistance by simply making:

weak = 1/2 CR
regular = CR
tough = CR x2

So, if the Drider worked out as having CR7 and therefore EL 12, it's SR would be 19.
The Pit Fiend, with CR27 --> EL 19 would have SR of 31 (that +12 bonus).

The Feats, Spell penetration, etc, have a larger effect in this system, so perhaps should provide only have the bonus (+1 for basic Spell Penetration.
So, a 20th level wizard (EL18) would add +18 to SR checks; if he had Spell Penetration and Great Spell Penetration, he would add +20.

With this suggestion, you could still use the original score, since it does apply in determining the final rating.

These figures become
Barbazu = CR 11 = EL 14 => (SR23-CR7 = +14) = SR 28
Pit Fiend = CR 27 = EL 19 => (SR28-CR16 = +12) = SR31
GW Red Dragon = CR 56 = EL 24 => (SR32-CR25) = SR31
Atropal = CR 90 = EL 26 => (SR42-CR30 = +12) = SR38
Hecatonchiere = CR 126 = CR 28=> (SR70-CR57) = SR41

The 20th-level wizard (with Great SP) needs:

8 to affect Barbazu (65% chance)
11 to affect Pit Fiend (50% chance)
11 to affect GW Red Dragon (50% chance)
18 to affect Atropal (15% chance)
21 to affect Hecatonchiere (5% chance)

The only one of these which is significantly affected over your figues is the dragon. But in the dragon and lesser cases, the chance is reduced from the standard rules, so having a 15+ required for the dragon doesn't seem justified.

I would be willing perhaps to accept the 'use current SR as CR' idea but not necessarily that the Spell Penetration feat (etc.) should work solely on EL.

Also, that Drider.
A CR7 Drider would be EL12. The 20th level wizard would actually fail to penetrate on 3 or less.
Under my suggestion, it's SR of 19 only allows a fail on a 1, as it would be under the normal rules.

Personally I see a little risk with Spell Penetration being a good thing, even when the caster is higher level.

I'm not over-keen on the "base 11" mechanic: it's extra arithmetic, and it's not intuitive. I think the 3e version of a set number that you roll and add another number to beat is easier.

DC = 10* + Encounter Level Difference then

*or 11.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Upper_Krust

As I suggested...

Cheeky bugger. You actually suggested it was more consistent to *include* darkvision in the equation a few pages back. No matter, I forgive you.



At any rate, if you're looking into it, that's wonderful. I would be more inclined to calculate Encounter Level by Number of Opponents (Table 1–2) using the chart for Party Encounter Level by Character Numbers (Table 1–3); rather than the other way around.

It already makes sense. You have created a system where PCs are clearly rated with higher Challenge Ratings than NPCs, and yet NPC numbers give them twice as many CR bonuses than characters. This makes no sense.

Using the numbers from Table 1–2 and Table 1–3, you have calculated 23 player characters to be less effective than 23 opponents by a factor of one-half! If anything, the characters would be more effective -- and they would be -- if both the opponents and players used the same chart (seeing as how PCs are unilaterally rated at a higher CR than NPCs).

If you calculate their *numbers* the same way, this problem is instantly solved.

*

As for the big release, make version 5 the final sale. You'll thank the extra feedback in end (before going big-time-Hollywood-public). I want your CR system to take over when the time comes, but it's not time for you to lock the laboratory door just yet (as all the feedback you're getting now will attest).

-----

demiurgeastaroth.

It looks like you came up with the correct XP values all by yourself.

Can you post what CR's these hobgoblins have, including fractions?

Sure thing. I should have made this clear earlier. The challenge ratings are identical to the values I listed earlier in that post. Namely...

A 1st level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR ½.
A 2nd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 1.
A 3rd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 2.

As I understand the process, adding CR +4 to CR ½ would equal CR 4. By extension, adding CR +4 to CR ¼ would equal CR 3.

Anybody disagree with this assessment?

 

[Anubis]

Don't give him any ideas!



This system still needs to be extensively play-tested and carefully examined. If we can get it standing up at every level (low-levels and high levels), without depending on arbitrary rulings, I can seriously see it revolutionizing Challenge Ratings (no joke).

Speaking of low-levels...

Upper_Krust.

After recently dungeon mastering a party from 1st to 3rd level, who primarily went up against hobgoblins, not only did it became clear to me that darkvision should not be added to their CR, but also that, yes indeed, all fractions should be rounded down (as per the popular consensus).

To be truly consistent -- and universal for that matter -- I think any creature (player character race, monster, or monster player character race) that advances "as character class" (like hobgoblins) should not add their racial ability bonuses to CR ... if their racial abilities do not exceed +0.5.

Right now you feel this way about the standard player character races. I think it should apply to all creatures.

Consequently this would make...

A 1st level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR ½.
A 2nd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 1.
A 3rd level NPC fighter hobgoblin CR 2.

Giving XP rewards to a party of four based on these CR values, and using all of the popular minute changes discussed in this thread, have finally felt right in the calculations.

Hold on. That could all change in a second.

Look at these numbers...

-----

Four 1st level player characters against four 1st level fighter hobgoblins awards 225 XP each.

Four 2nd level player characters against four 2nd level fighter hobgoblins awards 150 XP each.

Four 3rd level player characters against four 3rd level fighter hobgoblins awards 450 XP each.

-----

225 --> 150 --> 450.

That's a weird dip and rebound (for what should be steadily decreasing XP values).

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think that either monster *numbers* (Table 1–2) have to be calculated like character *numbers* (Table 1–3), or that character numbers have to be calculated like monster numbers. Either way, I think they have to be calculated the same way to avoid these weird anomalies.

Actually this CAN make perfect sense. Just because increases are the same does NOT mean that XP awards will go up or down at the same rate.

If you assume the following:

You see, at Level 1, the party is weak and is PEL 1. The hobgoblins are FAR more powerful at this level, and are correctly rated at EL 4.

At Level 2, however, the party is far more powerful and gains much more than the hobgoblins do thus far, being PEL 5 now. The hobgoblins barely gained any power, because their increase was small, and they are now EL 5.

At Level 3, the party gets the smaller boost in power and becomes PEL 7. The hobgoblins get a bigger power boost this time around and once again overtake the party in terms of power, becoming EL 9.

Then it makes sense. It COULD be argued that this is indeed true. Then again, there are those who would argue that it is not the case. There is another solution. Factor in the Darkvision.

Now you get PEL 1 against EL 5, PEL 5 against EL 9, and PEL 3 against EL 9. This assumes that both the PCs AND the monsters get their biggest boosts at Level 2 and not much for Level 3. I would almost rather do it this way. You are seriously underestimating the hobgoblins.

In my campaign recently, a party of three Level 2 characters (PEL 4) took on two hobgoblins and four goblins (EL 5). The party damn near got wiped out. In fact, they needed reinforcements from a fourth Level 2 character to survive. These were NORMAL hobgoblins and goblins to boot. If you don't get as much success, you simply must not be using them correctly. These thigns are NOT stupid. They're not geniuses, but they're not stupid. They have moderate tactics at the very least and should make full use of what they have, especially their one-shot ranged attacks.

By the way, I now know why you calculate EL only in whole numbers and never in fractions. Some enemies aren't counted in XP if you don't! Anyway, CR 1/2 is EL 0, whatever. UK, I ask you now . . . If for all purposes these fractional CRs are turned back into whole numbers for EL purposes, why assign any fractional CR in the first place? There's no point to it! That CR means pretty much nothing! Well except for maybe treasure, but that's a minor point only.

 

[Anubis]

At any rate, if you're looking into it, that's wonderful. I would be more inclined to calculate Encounter Level by Number of Opponents (Table 1–2) using the chart for Party Encounter Level by Character Numbers (Table 1–3); rather than the other way around.

It already makes sense. You have created a system where PCs are clearly rated with higher Challenge Ratings than NPCs, and yet NPC numbers give them twice as many CR bonuses than characters. This makes no sense.

Yes it does make sense. You're overlooking the single most important issue in the system. The PCs are the basis for the calculations. Is PEL = EL, that constitutes a 20% challenge for the PCs. Doing what you suggest, numbers now take a big hit to the EL and actually skews everything.

By your claims, a party of four Human Level 1 Fighters with PC wealth would be EL 1 rather than EL 5 as it currently stands. You know what the problem with that is? That party would be an EVEN CHALLENGE for the PCs, one they would have only a 50/50 chance of winning. I'm sorry, but this is clearly wrong. When EL and PEL are the same, that represents a minor 20% challenge, not a 50/50 encounter. That is precisely why the numbers are calculated different for PCs and monsters. Remember, PEL is NOT *actual* EL, it's the "actual EL minus 4" (for PC parties of four). That is the key.

UK, I know you're looking into this, I only hope this reminds you why you made it that way to begin with!

Using the numbers from Table 1–2 and Table 1–3, you have calculated 23 player characters to be less effective than 23 opponents by a factor of one-half! If anything, the characters would be more effective -- and they would be -- if both the opponents and players used the same chart (seeing as how PCs are unilaterally rated at a higher CR than NPCs).

Wrong. It calculates them the exact same way. You just subtract some when petermining the PEL, which is used to determine a 20% challenge, not an even encounter. Remember there IS a difference between actual EL and PEL. PEL is a tool to determine a specific level of challenge and XP awards, NOT to determine relative power ratings. For that, use the full EL.

This is why it was designed like that in the first place, remember?!