Revised Challenge Ratings/Encounter Levels (pdf)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello again mate! :)

Alchemist said:
I was arguing on your side, not against it Upper Krust. :)

Just to clarify: I don't think WotC should have tooled back the CR's of Dragons just because the party is probably going to be prepared, using the example that the same argument could be made for Terrasque hunting. I'm with you, man. It might read a little different from that light. :)

Oops my mistake dude! :o
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Upper_Krust said:
Hello again mate! :)



Oops my mistake dude! :o

No worries. I was a little confused when you started rebutting me with the same arguments that were running through my head when I wrote that message. :)
 

Hello again mate! :)

Alchemist said:
No worries. I was a little confused when you started rebutting me with the same arguments that were running through my head when I wrote that message. :)

I was juggling responses to two message boards and three people chatting on messenger at the time, I may have been distracted. :o
 

Just finished.

Some major alterations, all of which I see as logical and approve of. But....(and yes there is one)....you need to clean up the design a little. I know you have heard this from the posts above, it is the font that is a little overused.

Also, the dotted lines leading to the side notes, they run through sentences and make them difficult to read.

But the actual content of the chapter has improved, and I completely agree with the DR rules you present.

I noticed that all around, the CR of monsters increased, although I admit at first I was skeptical that an Atropal was CR 90! But then I remember my 42nd level party barely surviving an encounter with one, so.....;)

Clean it up a little and we will be on our way.

Also - any news of updating the SRD?

I grow impatient......:mad:

:D
 

Hi Dark Wolf mate! :)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
Just finished.

I appreciate the interest mate! :)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
Some major alterations, all of which I see as logical and approve of.

Okay.

Dark Wolf 97 said:
But....(and yes there is one)....you need to clean up the design a little. I know you have heard this from the posts above, it is the font that is a little overused.

I will change the font on the smallest subheading when I find one I like.

Dark Wolf 97 said:
Also, the dotted lines leading to the side notes, they run through sentences and make them difficult to read.

I'll have a think about them.

Dark Wolf 97 said:
But the actual content of the chapter has improved, and I completely agree with the DR rules you present.

Thanks.

Dark Wolf 97 said:
I noticed that all around, the CR of monsters increased, although I admit at first I was skeptical that an Atropal was CR 90! But then I remember my 42nd level party barely surviving an encounter with one, so.....;)

;)

Dark Wolf 97 said:
Clean it up a little and we will be on our way.

Sure thing.

Dark Wolf 97 said:
Also - any news of updating the SRD?

Afraid not. The end of April still seems the earliest opportunity for divine intervention.

Dark Wolf 97 said:
I grow impatient......:mad: :D

Easy Tiger! :)
 

So if one were making a Savage Species monstrous class for the leShay, it should have 50 levels?

Back to the PDF...

What do you mean by the side comment on page a1 that "Both Cleric and Druid class levels were evaluated to be CR +0.9/level". Surely you are not suggesting that clerics are only 90% as effective as regular characters!

Regarding burrowing: you should distinguish between burrowing that can only penetrate soil and burrowing that can penetrate solid stone.

Epic abilities: I think you left out a decimal point for the Colossus's Anti-magic field. You want "Disintegrating," not "Disintigrating" for the Umbral Blot.

Magic Immunity: why is a golem's total immunity to magic so much cheaper than a rakshasa's partial immunity?

Under design parameters, Poison. When you say that the primary damage plus half the secondary effect should be less than the creature's HD, do you mean maximum poison damage, or average poison damage?

More nitpicks as I find them....
 

Hi U_K!

Well, I just got through looking over the document, and all in all I'm quite impressed! It's obvious (even if we hadn't already known) that this is a real labor of love on your part!

Anyway, on to the feedback:

I know pretty much everyone else has said it, but I'll add my voice to the chorus: those header fonts have to go. They're quite hard to read.

Your methodology for determining CR and EL (and all sub-variants therein) is extremely well thought-out and broken down. My general reaction to that section though was, at first, slight puzzlement. While it's obviously useful for building monsters, the immediate use escapes me (save for the section on revised CRs, which I'll discuss below). Certainly, if I were going to design a new monster for my campaign, I'd turn to your Appendices first, but in a book that is, from what I understand, all about epic-level divinity (and such), this section strikes me as being a rather long "Behind the Curtain" section, like from WotC's books.

Basically, my reaction was something along the lines of "Is all this really necessary? Does the IH focus that much on monsters and CR that it warrants this huge appendix???" I'd expect an appendix that huge for one factor in a book all about monsters, such as Savage Species, but it strikes me as somewhat incongruous for a book about gods.

Of course, of much greater use is the section with the revised CRs. This section is definately helpful for a DM, since it "fixes" the CR listings that otherwise were not an accurate gauge of the creture's power. Likewise, the new spells are useful as well. In fact, my only worry here is "How long will this be necessary?" I've mentioned my wonderings about the IH and 3.5E before, and it seems like that these last two sections, more than anything else, will be the ones to be affected by the change, since quite a few monsters and spells will be revised for 3.5E. In the event that that happens that those become closer in line with what we already see here, those sections of the IH then become rather useless. Hopefully, the print version, which you mentioned would definately be post-3.5E, will fix those.

One other thing: I'm not sure I understand what the half-number after the slash is on the revised CRs. You say its a "difficult (possible50/50)" encounter. What does that mean exactly? Is it where the monster isn't fighting to the death, or what? I don't understand why a secondary, half-strength CR is needed.

The DR revision section is a good variant, with "variant" as the operative word. The language of that section makes it somewhat nebulous about whether the IH is using the rules presented there as standard throughout, or if it's just offering a possibility. This slightly worries me. You want the book to appeal to the widest possible audience, which means that, in the basic presentation, it shouldn't have to alter things where not necessary (at least to the degree that only "broken" things are altered). DR is, as WotC presents it, black and white, but its still viable. If the IH opens up using its own revision of DR, people who want to use it normally have to do that much work to "back-convert" DR to the normal system...and if it does that for DR, what else will people using it have to rework to the more familiar ground? Something can be better to use, but it still has to have wide appeal, or it will still fall by the wayside; merit isn't enough.

Anyway, that said, given the amount of work seen here, I can't wait to see the finished product! Keep up the great work!

Oh, as an afterthought: I noticed along the side of the PDF, it said "Immortals Handbook" in grey, but then in a smaller, black font, it said "Book One: Apotheosis". Now, considering that Appendices come at the end of a book...is this a hint that there will be more than one Immortals Handbook?
 
Last edited:

Hi Cheiromancer mate! :)

Cheiromancer said:
So if one were making a Savage Species monstrous class for the leShay, it should have 50 levels?

52 (remember it has Fast Healing, so that is +2 ECL)

Remember also that the Leshay already has wealth equal to a 46th-level PC.

Cheiromancer said:
Back to the PDF...

Okay.

Cheiromancer said:
What do you mean by the side comment on page a1 that "Both Cleric and Druid class levels were evaluated to be CR +0.9/level". Surely you are not suggesting that clerics are only 90% as effective as regular characters!

No. As I rate the classes they all worked out between +0.77/Level and +0.84/Level (rounding to +0.8, without equipment this is of course). But both the Cleric and Druid rated +0.9/Level (meaning they are +1.1/Level with PC equipment.

So a 20th-level Fighter is CR 20, but a 20th-level Cleric is really CR 22. However, I didn't want to make that intrinsic so I made it optional. DMs can use the information as they see fit.

Cheiromancer said:
Regarding burrowing: you should distinguish between burrowing that can only penetrate soil and burrowing that can penetrate solid stone.

Okay, well I would say base +0.2 (soil), base +0.5 (stone).

Cheiromancer said:
Epic abilities: I think you left out a decimal point for the Colossus's Anti-magic field.

Nope, Anti-Magic Field (wherein your own abilities are not affected) is the most powerful ability in the current books.

Two things though. It must be noted that in the Immortals Handbook Anti-Magic works on deities! Secondly that the above power also absorbed the Golems Magic Immunity.

Cheiromancer said:
You want "Disintegrating," not "Disintigrating" for the Umbral Blot.

Oops, noted.

Cheiromancer said:
Magic Immunity: why is a golem's total immunity to magic so much cheaper than a rakshasa's partial immunity?

It was one of those situations where I was caught in two minds.

However the Golems magic immunity should be half total immunity, since it cannot itself benefit from spells.

The problem was I was stuck between a rock and a hard place with whether to have Magic Immunity +0.5/Level of Immunity or +1/Level of Immunity.

I see to have mistakenly opted for both.

I'll have to change the Rakshasa to +4 (instead of +8), the Golem should probably be +2.25, but I'll leave it at +2.5 since there is generally a spell or two that can help and hinder them.

Cheiromancer said:
Under design parameters, Poison. When you say that the primary damage plus half the secondary effect should be less than the creature's HD, do you mean maximum poison damage, or average poison damage?

Always average, since thats what its rated under.

Cheiromancer said:
More nitpicks as I find them....

Sure. Thanks for the feedback mate.
 

Alzrius said:

Hi Alzrius mate! :)

Alzrius said:
Well, I just got through looking over the document, and all in all I'm quite impressed! It's obvious (even if we hadn't already known) that this is a real labor of love on your part!

Yeah. :o

Alzrius said:
Anyway, on to the feedback:

I know pretty much everyone else has said it, but I'll add my voice to the chorus: those header fonts have to go. They're quite hard to read.

I'll be changing the smallest subheading (the one which does the list of factors etc.) when I find a suitable font although I'll be keeping the font for the larger headers.

Feel free anyone to suggest a few fonts I should check out.

Alzrius said:
Your methodology for determining CR and EL (and all sub-variants therein) is extremely well thought-out and broken down.

Thanks. :)

Alzrius said:
My general reaction to that section though was, at first, slight puzzlement.

It can take either a few reads or putting things into practice to see all the nuances.

Alzrius said:
While it's obviously useful for building monsters, the immediate use escapes me (save for the section on revised CRs, which I'll discuss below). Certainly, if I were going to design a new monster for my campaign, I'd turn to your Appendices first, but in a book that is, from what I understand, all about epic-level divinity (and such), this section strikes me as being a rather long "Behind the Curtain" section, like from WotC's books.

Basically, my reaction was something along the lines of "Is all this really necessary? Does the IH focus that much on monsters and CR that it warrants this huge appendix???" I'd expect an appendix that huge for one factor in a book all about monsters, such as Savage Species, but it strikes me as somewhat incongruous for a book about gods.

It was totally necessary.

Firstly the core rules are not very accurate for how to create monsters.

Fact One: Deities can create monsters! Therefore you need valid CR rules. Not only that but you need a valid breakdown incase a player (deity) wishes to (for instance) create a Solar, but augment or modify him in certain ways.

Secondly, many of the core rules CRs are wrong. So you would have a situation whereby players would exploit those mistakes.

Thirdly the core rules for Encounter Levels are so wildly inaccurate that I sometimes have to pinch myself. This is especially noticeable at epic levels where you are hamstrung into using CR -8 to CR +8 opponents. Which is ludicrous when you consider one level = one CR. I mean a 59th-level character is not really that much more powerful than a 50th-level character. But according to the official rules its the difference bwteen night and day! :eek:

I remember revealing as much to Andy Collins on his Forums and I think he was shell-shocked how far off the mark they were.

So all the above needed sorted, otherwise you are never going to get Immortal roleplaying even remotely balanced, and added to the higher you ascend the more you constrict your options - whereas you should be expanding your options.

eg. Under my auspices a 60th-level party could face anything from CR 15 to 240 (EL -8 to +8). Whereas the official rules suggest they should only receive EXP for CR 52 to 68.

Alzrius said:
Of course, of much greater use is the section with the revised CRs. This section is definately helpful for a DM, since it "fixes" the CR listings that otherwise were not an accurate gauge of the creture's power.

Thanks.

Alzrius said:
Likewise, the new spells are useful as well. In fact, my only worry here is "How long will this be necessary?" I've mentioned my wonderings about the IH and 3.5E before, and it seems like that these last two sections, more than anything else, will be the ones to be affected by the change, since quite a few monsters and spells will be revised for 3.5E.

Well the monsters are not important, since I have refered to 3.0. Everyone knows that.

Additionally I would advocate you use my rules for Damage Reduction over 3.5s. Since 3.5 retains all the flaws of 3.0, they just lowered the numbers.

The spells (and items*) are a different matter. They will likely stay 'in' for the pdfs but I may remove them for the print version which will come out after 3.5.

*A two-page section I removed from the pdf at the last minute because I wanted to review it.

Alzrius said:
In the event that that happens that those become closer in line with what we already see here, those sections of the IH then become rather useless. Hopefully, the print version, which you mentioned would definately be post-3.5E, will fix those.

Absolutely. However, I will most likely retain the list of revised monster CRs, since those will still pertinent if you want to create 3.0 monsters.

Alzrius said:
One other thing: I'm not sure I understand what the half-number after the slash is on the revised CRs. You say its a "difficult (possible50/50)" encounter. What does that mean exactly? Is it where the monster isn't fighting to the death, or what? I don't understand why a secondary, half-strength CR is needed.

Okay, the reason for this was that most people don't understand what a CR is 'specifically'. So with most of my revisions being much higher than the core rules they could easily look at the figure and say "that looks way wrong!"

A CR is set to determine a moderate encounter. Not a tough encounter, but an encounter the PCs should win convincingly.

The second figure denotes a difficult encounter. That is one where the PCs have approximately a 50% chance of success (basically its a 50/50 encounter)

Alzrius said:
The DR revision section is a good variant, with "variant" as the operative word.

Absolutely. As ever, its advocated, but optional.

Alzrius said:
The language of that section makes it somewhat nebulous about whether the IH is using the rules presented there as standard throughout, or if it's just offering a possibility.

Well DR still looks the same either way, but yes I would certainly advocate using it as standard.

Alzrius said:
This slightly worries me. You want the book to appeal to the widest possible audience, which means that, in the basic presentation, it shouldn't have to alter things where not necessary (at least to the degree that only "broken" things are altered).

Exactly, but Damage Reduction is "broken"...

Alzrius said:
DR is, as WotC presents it, black and white, but its still viable.

No its not, and definately not at epic levels.

Firstly, note that even WotC admits that DR is broken (unfortunately they don't seem to understand why, because they are making the same mistake again in 3.5).

Damage Reduction, in the core rules both promotes the unfair black and white scenario and at the same time actually promotes a munchkin arms race!

Alzrius said:
If the IH opens up using its own revision of DR, people who want to use it normally have to do that much work to "back-convert" DR to the normal system.

There is no real 'back conversion' (certainly not within my rules since all DRs are given in units of 5/+1).

Frankly, people can still use DR as they see fit, but it IS broken, therefore I can't advocate it! I have given a simple solution, make of that what you will.

Alzrius said:
..and if it does that for DR, what else will people using it have to rework to the more familiar ground? Something can be better to use, but it still has to have wide appeal, or it will still fall by the wayside; merit isn't enough.

If people start using the core Damage Reduction rules for an epic/immortal game then be it on their heads - they were warned.

Alzrius said:
Anyway, that said, given the amount of work seen here, I can't wait to see the finished product! Keep up the great work!

Thanks mate! I appreciate the feedback.

Alzrius said:
Oh, as an afterthought: I noticed along the side of the PDF, it said "Immortals Handbook" in grey, but then in a smaller, black font, it said "Book One: Apotheosis". Now, considering that Appendices come at the end of a book...is this a hint that there will be more than one Immortals Handbook?

Remember that the Immortals Handbook is being split into four sections when its released as pdfs.

Apotheosis - basics
Grimoire - magic & artifacts
Bestiary - monsters
Chronicle - campaign advice, settings, adventures

Though I already know what will come after the Immortals Handbook. :p
 


Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top