Revised Challenge Ratings/Encounter Levels (pdf)

[demiurgeastaroth]

Re: Fractional CR

Therefore, this CR system should definitely award proportionate XP at all levels.

To simply rationalize those lower levels away is no better than WotC overlooking the insignificant difference between a 100th and 101st level character (which I believe prompted this CR system in the first place).

A very good point

Darren

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ECL calculation and Demons

Have the demons equal the number of PCs and use hit and run tactics and then see how tough they can be.

They can be frustrating, yes, but they just aren't challenging the way others of the same CR tend to be.
At levels where PCs significantly exceed the CR of kobolds, I can harass a group with kobolds to much the same comparatve effect.

Te comparison isn't unreasonable for another reason - most fiends really aren't that sturdy, so they pop up, make a single attack, and hope their powers keep them concealed/etc. for the single round it'll take to waste or nearl waste them. (And that's assuming they use the pre 3.5E haste, which none of them have as natural abilities.)


Demons and Devils are funny critters, in that if you encounter them early, they will wipe the floor with you more than other creatures of a similar CR, because of their high spell resistance and AC. But once a group reaches a levels equal to the CR listed in the MM, they tend to be push overs.

So pushing their UK EL to a higher comparitive level doesn't seem right.
I do know what the DMG definition of a moderate encounter is, as opposed to an easy one, and I don't think demons are it.
But I think the problem here is that demons and devils are pretty badly designed; if thay were more like celestials (having lots of spell abilities in combination with impressive fighting abilities - for the durability it provides), they might be easier to rate.
As it happens, at the levels demons & devils are meant to be a moderate challenge, nearly (and I say nearly, not all) all of each creatures attacks are a waste of time, only good for harrying and distracting purposes.

But if the new Pit Fiend is anything to go by, this is likely to change for the better in 3.5E.

Darren

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fractional CR

Um, NPC class is worth 0.6, NOT 0.8, see the table. Warriors (their class) is 0.6 per level. Darkvision is 0.2 of course. Total is 0.8, which is CR 0.

I missed that. Let's give it +2 STR

I'm talking about the CR/ECL for the ogre itself. Equipment and stuff doesn't come until AFTER you stick classes and such on it.

Which, since we were talking about using it as PC would be the case.
One thing I end to do with intelligent monsters who have access to societies willing to trae with them, is work out the GP value of the treasure they are supposed to have, and equipm them as an appropriate NPC of a level where they gain that amount of treasure.
Since that paragraphs a bit convoluted, I'll give an example.
A Yuan-ti Pure Blood is a CR5 creature, and gets double treasure: 3200gp. That's roughly what 4th level NPC gets, so I'll give it equipment as a 4th level rogue or something.
(I do recognise this makes them more challenging and up the XP award - one of the things I like about UKs system is it does handle this in the system).

Darren

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Actually, I don't think it does. Consider a PC with Fast Healing 1. That PC will very slowly recover hit points in the middle of a fight, but other than that, the ability is not that great. Fast Healing becomes powerful between fights, when the PC can just hang out and heal fairly quickly. In effect, the PC is much harder to beat down over a period of time.

However, consider this; a PC that has just been in combat and has not had time to fully heal will not be at 100% fighting capacity. If a DM wants to throw another fight at that PC, he will have to take into account that the PC is not fully recovered from the previous fight. This effectively increases the EL of the new encounter, and the DM must plan for this. In short, because the PC has not fully recovered from the previous fight, it effects the campaign because the DM has to take that into account.

The fact that the GM has to account for this means it does affect the campaign.
A player with fast healing 1 will be fully healed in a matter of minutes whether he rests or not, and that allows the grou to conserve resources (healing potions and clerical spells).
Because of this, and because the character will nearly always be at full hit points, the group is able to face more challenging situations - they can keep going for longer, and don't rest as often. If they only have 1 fight a day, it makes no difference, but if they have several, it makes the group more powerful. Thus, it costs more.

Darren

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

In determining challenges for CR and EL and PL and PEL and all, it is ALWAYS *assumed* that "BOTH SIDES ARE FRESH". Therefore, ANYTHING that happens between combats is irrelevent and NOT part of the equation.

Since challenges assume two fresh 100% sides, you can't take things that happen outside combat into consideration when determining such things. Therefore, the ability to use fast healing, regeration, and SLAs more often is a moot point!

Do I got it? I think so.

Actually, no you haven't

In determining challenge ratings, it is assumed that PC resources will deplete, and that a team can just about manage 4 encounters of equivalent CR.
NO CR is designed as a single encounter: it is all about attrition.
The assumption is that opponents are always fresh, but that PCs will be at anything from 100% to 20% resources.

Darren

 

[kreynolds]

The fact that the GM has to account for this means it does affect the campaign.

I never said it didn't.

A player with fast healing 1 will be fully healed in a matter of minutes whether he rests or not, and that allows the grou to conserve resources (healing potions and clerical spells).

A player with fast healing 1 will still consume party resources, such as healing potions and clerical spells, when in combat. Fast Healing 1 is not good enough to keep with the damage of a fight. It is only truly useful outside of combat. But, that's irrelevant anyway.

A PC with healing potions and a monster with fast healing both have access to healing resources. However, the monster has an infinite amount of healing resources, while the PC does not. The monster's CR will take this into account, but the point is that it doesn't matter. The Core Rules, and even UK's own system, both give out fast healing to monsters cheaper than to PCs simply because monsters die quickly and aren't around in the game long enough (usually no longer than an encounter or two), even though the monster exhists and conducts a day to day life when the PCs aren't there to hack it up. Any system based off of this is inherently flawed.

Basically, its like saying "I'm going to charge you more for this because you get more playtime", and that doesn't make any sense.

If they only have 1 fight a day, it makes no difference, but if they have several, it makes the group more powerful. Thus, it costs more.

So, let me get this straight...you're saying that the ECL modifier of Fast Healing for a PC is directly based upon how many encounters a DM sets up for his PCs in a single day? By stating the PCs are more powerful if they have several fights a day, that is in fact what you're saying, and that doesn't make any sense either, as that would also mean that Fast Healing on a monster that is encountered several times in one day before being defeated would have a much higher CR modifier than normal.

 

[kreynolds]

NO CR is designed as a single encounter...

Eh?

Party: Four 9th level player characters.
Foe: One hound archon.

There. I just designed one.

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Eh?

Party: Four 9th level player characters.
Foe: One hound archon.

There. I just designed one.

Actually, you've taken a creature whose challenge rating is designed under the assumption it will be one of several encounters that day.
If you give a group more effective healing (fast healing for example), it will allow them to face more encounters per day.

The Encounters section of the DMG (starting on page 100) discusses this, in particular the sidebar at the bottom of page101 (bottombar?) entitled "What's Challenging".

Lets say that the group scrapes through 4 encounters, and are on the verge of death.
Take an otherwise identical group, and add some level f fast healing. For the4 sake of this example, they manage to scrape through 5 encounters before reaching the same state.
Fast healing has given them an extra 25% experience, but in actuality they faced the same overall challenge - the experience should be the same.
This is achieved by increasing the party level to compensate (by increasing the ECL of the character who has fast healing).

[I avoided exact numbers of fast healing, because it's difficult to say exactly how much the ECL should increase - that's a problem for UK )

Darren

 

[kreynolds]

Actually, you've taken a creature whose challenge rating is designed under the assumption it will be one of several encounters that day.

No. The Hound Archon's challenge rating simply represents that it is an appropriate challenge (one that would deplete 20% of the parties resources) for a 9th level party. Nothing else.

The Encounters section of the DMG (starting on page 100) discusses this, in particular the sidebar at the bottom of page101 (bottombar?) entitled "What's Challenging".

No. You are taking that text out of context. The passage "What's Challenging" is merely advice as to how you should set up multiple encounters in a single day, pointing out that you should take into account the fact that the party's resources will be continually depleted with each additional encounter.

What you are suggesting is that a hound archon's CR of 9 represents but one fight in a day full of fights. This is entirely inaccurate.

Lets say that the group scrapes through 4 encounters, and are on the verge of death.
Take an otherwise identical group, and add some level f fast healing. For the4 sake of this example, they manage to scrape through 5 encounters before reaching the same state.
Fast healing has given them an extra 25% experience, but in actuality they faced the same overall challenge - the experience should be the same.
This is achieved by increasing the party level to compensate (by increasing the ECL of the character who has fast healing).

You're missing the point. I never said that the ECL of a character should not be increased. Not once. What I _did_ say, however, is that the ECL of a character with fast healing should not be increased more than the CR of a monster with fast healing. They both have the same amount of resources, so why should fast healing cost more for one and less for othe other?

Take two identical 10th level fighters with the exact same amount of resources. Now, make one a PC and one an NPC, both with the exact same amount of resources. They are perfectly matched in CR (granted, it will be a truly ugly fight, but they are still matched). Neither has anything over the other. Now, give both of them fast healing. If you can explain to me why the PC will suddenly have a higher CR (because of an increase in his ECL from fast healing) than the NPCs CR (increased because of fast healing), even though they have the exact same resources...

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

What you are suggesting is that a hound archon's CR of 9 represents but one fight in a day full of fights. This is entirely inaccurate.

This is the basis upon which the CR, EL, and experience system are designed. Everything flows from that. The DMG even recommends that in situations where players will encounter fewer encounters per day (as in the wilderness), you should increase the EL of those encounters to compensate.
Not every day of adventure will follow those guidelines, of course, but the system is designed based on those assumptions.

What I _did_ say, however, is that the ECL of a character with fast healing should not be increased more than the CR of a monster with fast healing. They both have the same amount of resources, so why should fast healing cost more for one and less for othe other?

Because they do different things. For the bad guy, it bolsters it in a single fight allowing it to last a little bit longer.
For the PCs, it does that, AND allows them to fight more often.

Take two identical 10th level fighters with the exact same amount of resources. Now, make one a PC and one an NPC, both with the exact same amount of resources.
Now, give both of them fast healing. If you can explain to me why the PC will suddenly have a higher CR (because of an increase in his ECL from fast healing) than the NPCs CR (increased because of fast healing), even though they have the exact same resources...

The PC will not have a higher CR; he will have a higher ECL. They are two different things. Both the NPC and C's ECL ratings would be increased by more than their CR rating, but the ECL rating only matters if the character is a PC, or a companion NPC (a cohort, for example).

The DMG does discuss (n passing; I expect Savage Species goes into more detail) the difference between ECL and CR on page 22, under Variant: Monsters as Races (but uses the term Monster Levels since the term ECL wasn't coined then).

Darren