Revised Challenge Ratings/Encounter Levels (pdf)

[S'mon]

Re: EL/EXP solution

Hi Sonofapreacherman and Eldorian!

Like I said previously I won't be turning my attention fully on the matter until I get home. So I can't really agree or refute at this juncture.

I'll run some tests and opt for the simplest available solution. Then we can see what everyone thinks.

The solution may eventually be one of the above ideas (?) - its just too early to say.


Okay gotta go get ready to leave, cya all later from sunny Belfast.

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons

Hello again mate!
Part of this is because people are so ingrained on Challenge Ratings that they fail to see the big picture (ie. the relative Encounter Levels).

The Pit Fiend may be CR 27, but it is only EL +1 higher than a 19th-level Fighter.

I don't think that's the mistake I'm making. I see the levels that the demons are supposed to be moderate challenges for in this system, and I think they would be easy meat at those levels.
The Vrock, Hezrou and Glabrezu (to pick three examples), with CR16-19, are suitable challenges for a level 16-19 group by your numbers. I think a level 16-19 group will walk through these almost without breaking a sweat.

edited to remove ironic error
Darren

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Flying creatures: If the party can fly and attack from a distance, and the opponent can't attack flying creatures (and the situation the GM has cooked up doesn't force them down in order to fight it), there should be very little XP for the encounter. However, this is easily handled by situational EL modifiers.

That's true.

Flight allows you to change the tactical dimensions of a fight, but so does dimension door, spell resistance, and immunity to bludgeoning weapons. It's just one more thing to have a countermeasure for, and (like the ability to create walls of ice) one which can modify the situation... hence the situational EL modifiers, rather than a hefty CR cost.

It does tend to get encountered earlier than dimension door and spell resistance, and dimension door is usually a limited resource whereas flying, especially for PCs with wings (my main bone of contention), it can be always on.

Darren

Darren

 

[Anubis]

Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants

I said ECL 6. This was before seeing the CR/EL document - the standard rules. According to the DMG, they are ECL 5. I wasn't cnvicned, bumped them up to ECL 6, and still thought it might not be enough - a suspicion borne out in playtest.
Of course, I'm not so rash as to consider that proof, but to me it is compelling.

Darren

ECL? In that case you judge it TOO HIGH. ECL and CR are interchangable in most cases with UK's system. (Some would factor in ability scores into the ECL, but since this is already in the size modifier for the most part, that is unnecessary.)

The ECL of an ogre is the same as its CR: 4.

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Fractional CR

For CRs below 4, each CR provides a wide range. Have you thought about using fractional levels at this range, so that each EL has a corresponding CR, as in:

CR EL
1 1
1.25 2
1.5 3
1.75 4
2 5
2.5 6
3 7
3.5 8
4 9

Or is there a good reason not to?

Sonofapreacherman mentions a problem about 1st level character experience (which is a separate problem from the Group factor being counted twice in XP).
UK counters with the fragility of low level characters.
It is true that low level characters are fragile, but that doesn't mean they should get awards so high that groups don't spend any time at that level.
The progression used in the DMG also breaks down at low levels, so that levels 1-2 are treated the same as level 3 for experience.

My suggestion for dealing with this problem:
Treat a team of level 1 PCs as having an EL of 3, rather than 1.
This doesn't alter the monsters (a monster with CR1 still has an EL1) but reduces the high gains of low level.

Actually, to be closer the monster manual (where level 2 groups get 1.5x the experience of 3rd level groups, and 1st level characters get 3x the exp of 3rd level groups), the ELs of low leel groups should be:
3rd level: EL 7
2nd level: EL 6
1st level: EL 4
(Or you could make that last one EL5 just to keep a neat progression.)
These would be just used for giving out XP awards, not for determining the challenge of encounters.

Now, two hobgoblins (EL7) would be worth 1800xp under the first system, and 900xp under the second, to a team of 1st level characters. (As opposed to 1350xp according to the DMG).

[Edited to wonder: but are those 2 level 2 hobgoblins EL9?]
Darren

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL ability scores and giants

ECL? In that case you judge it TOO HIGH.

I don't agree. If you're interested, scroll back to where I give my reasons.

ECL and CR are interchangable in most cases with UK's system.

I agree that some factors can be treated interchangably, but I think I disagree on how many.

Darren

 

[Anubis]

About the EL/XP problems . . .

Under the currrent system, although it LOOKS like you are factoring in party size twice for XP for the same encounter, in actuality, you are not.

You factor it once for the overall challenge and the second time for XP calculations.

Most of you are forgetting that the fewer people you have on the party, the more difficult an encounter of any particular EL is! If you have a group of Level 2 characters (PEL 5), an EL 5 encounter should be cake. If you have a SINGLE Level 2 character, however (PEL 1), an EL 5 encounter will be damn near impossible. As such, party size SHOULD be counted twice. It is simply counted for different reasons.

I DO, however, believe the numbers to be *slightly* too high. After careful study, the problem is solved with the idea presented by someone else that experience points should be based on per character rather than per party. Someone suggested that XP awards should be "75*PL" rather than "300*PL divided up amongst the party members". If a solution is necessary, this is the proper solution, as it continues to count the party size twice (once for challenge and a second time for XP calculations) but does not overinflate the XP awards.

 

[Anubis]

Re: Fractional CR

For CRs below 4, each CR provides a wide range. Have you thought about using fractional levels at this range, so that each EL has a corresponding CR, as in:

CR EL
1 1
1.25 2
1.5 3
1.75 4
2 5
2.5 6
3 7
3.5 8
4 9

Or is there a good reason not to?

Sonofapreacherman mentions a problem about 1st level character experience (which is a separate problem from the Group factor being counted twice in XP).
UK counters with the fragility of low level characters.
It is true that low level characters are fragile, but that doesn't mean they should get awards so high that groups don't spend any time at that level.
The progression used in the DMG also breaks down at low levels, so that levels 1-2 are treated the same as level 3 for experience.

My suggestion for dealing with this problem:
Treat a team of level 1 PCs as having an EL of 3, rather than 1.
This doesn't alter the monsters (a monster with CR1 still has an EL1) but reduces the high gains of low level.

Actually, to be closer the monster manual (where level 2 groups get 1.5x the experience of 3rd level groups, and 1st level characters get 3x the exp of 3rd level groups), the ELs of low leel groups should be:
3rd level: EL 7
2nd level: EL 6
1st level: EL 4
(Or you could make that last one EL5 just to keep a neat progression.)
These would be just used for giving out XP awards, not for determining the challenge of encounters.

Now, two hobgoblins (EL7) would be worth 1800xp under the first system, and 900xp under the second, to a team of 1st level characters. (As opposed to 1350xp according to the DMG).

[Edited to wonder: but are those 2 level 2 hobgoblins EL9?]
Darren

Oh good grief no! If you do that, you once again go right back to the problems that happen when you count ability scores at low level! You do that and you reduce the XP awards far too much. First off, understand that the so-called "inflated" XP awards only happen when you go with a party size smaller than standard, which is less than four. Two fighter hobgoblins are gonna seriously hammer a Level 1 party. Don't agree? TRY IT. Believe me, don't underestimate the fighter hobgoblins! Hell two NORMAL hobgoblins can challenge a Level 1 party. I've seen it. Did it in my most recent gaming session.

As for the fractional CR/EL progression, that is simply way too pedantic and brings about too many calculations. You can get ELs that CRs can't get you by adding monsters to the encounter. Three goblins are EL 2. Four goblins are EL 3. Six goblins are EL 4. That's how you get to those "missing" ELs.

Anyway, "just say no to inflated PEL at low levels"! Characters SHOULDN'T be in those levels for long. Little to no flexibility for the DM, cause too many things can kill the party outright. It's best to get to Level 4 ASAP, 'casue that's when it really begins. People HATE Levels 1-3.

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

About the EL/XP problems . . .

Under the currrent system, although it LOOKS like you are factoring in party size twice for XP for the same encounter, in actuality, you are not.

In actuality, you ARE.

You factor it once for the overall challenge and the second time for XP calculations.
Most of you are forgetting that the fewer people you have on the party, the more difficult an encounter of any particular EL is!

Yes, but factoring it for the overall challenge (with the PEL modifier) already takes into account the size of the group.
Example: an EL 20 encounter faced by several different groups.

In each case, the character are all of level 20 (giving a base EL18).

First, 4-man team: PEL18, they get 300 x 2 (for +2 EL) x level, divided among party = 3000xp each.

Then, a 2-man team faces the same encounter. PEL drops to 16, so they get 300x4 (+4 EL) xlevel divided among party, equals 12000xp each.

Then, a single hero faces that encounter (PEL14), and gets 300 x8 x level / 1 = 48,000xp.

An 8-man group would have a PEL20, and thus get 300 x 1 x level / 8 = 750xp each.

In each case, halving the party size quadruples XP, when it is supposed to be a doubling ratio.

I DO, however, believe the numbers to be *slightly* too high.

Actually, the PDF figures can be too high or too low - it depends on party size as shown above.

After careful study, the problem is solved with the idea presented by someone else that experience points should be based on per character rather than per party. Someone suggested that XP awards should be "75*PL" rather than "300*PL divided up amongst the party members".
If a solution is necessary, this is the proper solution, as it continues to count the party size twice (once for challenge and a second time for XP calculations) but does not overinflate the XP awards.

Actually, neither solution is the proper solution - both work.
I originally suggested two methods:
1) Remove the group modifier from XP calculations, and use it only for determining challenge.
2) Keep the group modifier, but modify the XP chart to give individual XP awards.

Either method works (they produce identical results) - they differ only in presentation.

Darren

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Re: Re: Fractional CR

Characters SHOULDN'T be in those levels for long. Little to no flexibility for the DM, cause too many things can kill the party outright. It's best to get to Level 4 ASAP, 'casue that's when it really begins. People HATE Levels 1-3.

As it happens, some people actually like playing at those level 1-3 levels.
We clearly differ on design goals. I want the system to produce more realistic challenge ratings, yes, but I also want it to maintain the same rough speed of progression as in the DMG - this looks like a problem at level 1-2.
I don't think UKs system should be used JUST as a method of producing realistic CRs, not as a method to "fix" the game at level 1-3 - which works fine for me.

As for the fractional CR/EL progression, that is simply way too pedantic and brings about too many calculations.

Certainly less than (say) calculating the CR bonus from monster spell like abilities. It produces no more calculations at all - you use exactly the same calculations, take your result, look at the table. You check if the figue you have is above or below the listed threshold, and round appropriately, then cross-reference.
The only extra work is in producing the table itself which is easy enough, as I showed.

You can get ELs that CRs can't get you by adding monsters to the encounter. Three goblins are EL 2. Four goblins are EL 3. Six goblins are EL 4. That's how you get to those "missing" ELs.

Take two creatures, one calculated at CR 1 and another at 1.5.
If the system works, there should be as mjuch gulf in power between these two creatures as between a CR8 and a CR12 creature (which work out at EL 13 and 15).
That is, a level 1 group faces the same challenge from a CR1 creature, as a Level 8 group faces from a CR 8 creature, AND a level 1 group faces the same danger from a CR 1.5 creature that a Level 8 group faces from a CR 12 critter.

That .5CR could be an extra HD, which makes a big difference to
people at 1st level.

You use the goblin encounter, but picking critters which work out at CR 1 would be a better example.
Lets pick a few.
Orcs as 1st level warriors & darkvision are CR1.
Gnolls (2HD creatures) are CR 1.4
Wolf (2HD creature with trip attack) are CR1.7.

I think some of these are worth more than others to a first level group, especially if encountered in numbers.

Darren