Revised Challenge Ratings/Encounter Levels (pdf)

[Anubis]

Re: Optional Spell Resistance

Hi all!

A number of people have commented that Spell resistance should be tied to Encounter Levels rather than Challenge Ratings (or Hit Dice I suppose).

But until recently I wasn't happy with how this affected certain feats (spell penetration; greater spell penentration or [epic] improved spell resistance etc. or indeed similar divine abilities) and magic items.

However, let me know what you think of this solution:

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.

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)

Any comments?

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.

eg. GW Red Dragon is CR 54 (EL 23) without factoring SR. But applying SR makes it EL 24 (and arguably CR 62 since at that measure of power EL is increased every 8 CR).

Any more comments?

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

I hope I'm not being too blunt when I say this idea sucks.

The ONLY way to fix SR to be meaningful is with my original idea of using EL to figure out SR, as caster level for penetration, and for all other such things.

Simply put, do it as follows:

Find out the difference between the SRs as-is and the current CR ratings from the books. For example, a Lemure has SR 5 and is CR 1. This is a +4 difference.

Then you figure out the new CR and EL by the UK system. By the new system, a Lemure is CR 2 and EL 5.

Now you take the difference between the original SR and CR and add it to the new EL from UK's system. For the Lemure, this means 5+4, or SR 9.

For CR purposes, and this is a minor thing that already has to be done with creatures that create spawn anyway, find the difference between the new SR and the old SR. For the Lemure, that would be 9-5, or 4. Now add that value of the extra SR into the CR value of the creature. For hte Lemure, this would be 2.75 + 0.4, giving us a final CR of 3.15 for the creature. If this increases CR/EL, adjust things. CR 3 means EL 7, and that means 7+4 gives the Lemure SR 11 at this point. Repeat this step until CR/EL does not increase. Most of the time, there will be no increase, and for most epic monsters, the CR/EL will DECREASE! For the Lemure, we have an extra 2 SR, so 3.15 + 0.2 gives us 3.35, a final CR rating that is no bigger or smaller than the previous. Done. This final step, however, may be pedantic and needless, and thus it should be optional. There actually is no need to recalculate anything because a good enough calculation has already been made using the original SR.

Now when PCs go up against the creature, take the new SR. For the Lemure, we'll skip the final step and say it has SR 9 for this test. Spell penetration is done using *actual* EL numbers (NOT PEL). Against the Lemure, a Level 1 spellcaster PC (EL 1) would need an 8, a Level 2 spellcaster PC (EL 5) would need a 4, a Level 3 spellcaster PC (EL 7) would need a 2, and any spellcaster of a higher level than that would penetrate on a 2 as well. This works at ALL levels.

Anyway, with that, and even without the final recalculation step, the SR problem is 100% fixed. Even the feats and stuff make sense again! Not only that, but despite the lengthy explanation, it is a piece of cake to determine the new SR ratings, especially if you skip that last step. (Other testers and UK can check to see if that step is actually needed or not. I don't think it is necessary, to be honest, but I posted it just in case someone wanted to see it.) Anyway, problem solved. SR remains useful at all levels, the numbers never get too high or low, and everything works out perfect!

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

demiurgeastaroth.

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

Hmm, so I did

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?

It does look that way. It seems like retaining the fractional values is a bad idea - it only causes confusion.

Darren

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Pseudo-deity Package

Hey, U_K, what's the CR mod for the rank 0/1 deity abilities?

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Playtesting

I'm going to be playtesting the CR system over the next monthy or two, so if there are any current alterations to CR calculations not listed in version 3 of the file, could you post them?
Is there going to be a version 4?

One of the main reasons I'm testing it is that I use a LOT of advanced creatures, templates, and creatures with class levels, and I think the official method of calculating these things is really poor.

I've gone over my group's encounters for the last adventure, and I find that if I had use UK's system, I would have given around 27,000XP each rather than 9,000 (they are 24th level). This difference worries me...
I think I'm a pretty good judge of what my group can handle, and the only encounter that I felt the players deserved more XP for was the tarrasque (about 400xp in the standard system, compared to around 7,000 in UK's). The tarrasque was probably worth around half the UK value (it did consume more than 20% resources, but never seriously threatened them - an EL+2 encounter seems about right).

I find that if I halve the XP values generated by UK's system, this feels about right. I'm not sure whether that's true at all levels, or is something that only occurs at certain levels. It might point to a fundamental problem with the system, or it might just be that my group is powerful for it's EL. I don't know, but that's the one change I'll be making to the system for playtesting purposes.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

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.

Funny. You didn't actually say anything here, except to regurgitate how the system currently works ... without seemingly understanding why (hence your inability to objectively question it). No matter. Let's see if I can clear it up.

First of all, a party of four 1st level characters are CR 1 and EL 1.
A party of four 1st level NPCs would be CR 0 and (presumably) EL 0.

The NPCs would represent an easy challenge to the player characters. Not a moderate challenge at all.

Because the player characters are already inherently more powerful than the NPCs, why would NPCs receive a greater CR bonus for the same number of opponents?

If you can address that point about Upper_Krust's CR system (you know, the actual issue I brought up) perhaps you will move a step closer towards objectively questioning it.

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Stumped

Hey U_K, when you post the CR modifier of a pseudo deity , could you be so kind as to also post the cost of the lernean feature of hydras. I'm stumped (pun intended) with regards working out the CR of a 10 headed, lernean cryohydra.


Darren

 

[Upper_Krust]

Upper_Krust

Hiya mate!

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.

Possibly.

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.

But you don't use PEL for NPCs - I don't understand your above notions; in fact I think you have picked something up wrong...?

A party of four 20th-level (player) characters are PEL 18
But the same party of four 20th-level characters (with PC equipment) encountered by another PC party will be EL 22 (18 + 4)

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).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Re: Optional Spell Resistance

Hiya mate!

I hope I'm not being too blunt when I say this idea sucks.

You...blunt...never.

The ONLY way to fix SR to be meaningful is with my original idea of using EL to figure out SR, as caster level for penetration, and for all other such things.

Simply put, do it as follows:

Find out the difference between the SRs as-is and the current CR ratings from the books. For example, a Lemure has SR 5 and is CR 1. This is a +4 difference.

Then you figure out the new CR and EL by the UK system. By the new system, a Lemure is CR 2 and EL 5.

Now you take the difference between the original SR and CR and add it to the new EL from UK's system. For the Lemure, this means 5+4, or SR 9.

For CR purposes, and this is a minor thing that already has to be done with creatures that create spawn anyway, find the difference between the new SR and the old SR. For the Lemure, that would be 9-5, or 4. Now add that value of the extra SR into the CR value of the creature. For hte Lemure, this would be 2.75 + 0.4, giving us a final CR of 3.15 for the creature. If this increases CR/EL, adjust things. CR 3 means EL 7, and that means 7+4 gives the Lemure SR 11 at this point. Repeat this step until CR/EL does not increase. Most of the time, there will be no increase, and for most epic monsters, the CR/EL will DECREASE! For the Lemure, we have an extra 2 SR, so 3.15 + 0.2 gives us 3.35, a final CR rating that is no bigger or smaller than the previous. Done. This final step, however, may be pedantic and needless, and thus it should be optional. There actually is no need to recalculate anything because a good enough calculation has already been made using the original SR.

Now when PCs go up against the creature, take the new SR. For the Lemure, we'll skip the final step and say it has SR 9 for this test. Spell penetration is done using *actual* EL numbers (NOT PEL). Against the Lemure, a Level 1 spellcaster PC (EL 1) would need an 8, a Level 2 spellcaster PC (EL 5) would need a 4, a Level 3 spellcaster PC (EL 7) would need a 2, and any spellcaster of a higher level than that would penetrate on a 2 as well. This works at ALL levels.

Anyway, with that, and even without the final recalculation step, the SR problem is 100% fixed. Even the feats and stuff make sense again! Not only that, but despite the lengthy explanation, it is a piece of cake to determine the new SR ratings, especially if you skip that last step. (Other testers and UK can check to see if that step is actually needed or not. I don't think it is necessary, to be honest, but I posted it just in case someone wanted to see it.) Anyway, problem solved. SR remains useful at all levels, the numbers never get too high or low, and everything works out perfect!

It could just be the way I am reading it but I think your idea is a bit too complicated to be at all practical.

...maybe thats just me though!?

What does anyone else think?

 

[Ashardalon]

Re: Re: Re: Optional Spell Resistance

...maybe thats just me though!?

For the record... it is not just you.


As far as a half-fiendish great red wyrm can count in the battle of gods.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Pseudo-deity Package

Hiya mate!

Hey, U_K, what's the CR mod for the rank 0/1 deity abilities?

Not sure I fully understand the question? Do you mean the template for divinity or the individual deific abilities (salient divine abilities).

I don't technically use Divine Rank in the Immortals Handbook.

I have the Quasi-deity (in my book) rated as a +20 CR template.

The deific abilities each rate approx. +1 CR.