Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread

[MTR]

Well, as somebody who stumbled into this thread it certainly was, um, interesting. Despite that I'd be interested in finding out more about the system. I will say that advancing through the lower levels in fewer fights than the middle/upper levels is not, from my point of view, good.

I do wonder how much certain factors can be taken into account. If a party tends to be timid and falls back to rest and recover they won't string together enough of those 20% encounters to get them to the point where the players are scared in combat. If you up the danger of the encounters they go up in level after very few play sessions. Who's the best tactician at the table can be a major factor. I'm driving at this: no system can take such factors into account but such factors are going to swamp very precise CR calculations.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi there MTR!

Thanks for stopping by.

Well, as somebody who stumbled into this thread it certainly was, um, interesting.

Its difficult picking the wheat from the chaff in this thread of late.

Despite that I'd be interested in finding out more about the system.

There is a link in the very first post of this thread which takes you here:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45989

Where you can download the entire set of rules (although its an earlier incarnation of the rules proper and there have been a few tweaks here and there since but you will get the gist of it).

I will say that advancing through the lower levels in fewer fights than the middle/upper levels is not, from my point of view, good.

Well it does rate the challenge consistently though, rather than arbitrarily make encounters at lower levels worth less, as the official rules do.

I do wonder how much certain factors can be taken into account.

I will certainly expound upon situational modifiers within the final draft. Thats something I really need to address further.

If a party tends to be timid and falls back to rest and recover they won't string together enough of those 20% encounters to get them to the point where the players are scared in combat.

That tactic won't work in all situations though and of course theres nothing to prevent enemy forces regrouping/calling reinforcements/planning specifically for the PCs return etc.

If you up the danger of the encounters they go up in level after very few play sessions.

If you play it 'by the book' though, PC casualties at low levels are practically a certainty. The increase in EXP is simply an extension of this.

Who's the best tactician at the table can be a major factor. I'm driving at this: no system can take such factors into account but such factors are going to swamp very precise CR calculations.

As I have mentioned situational modifiers are going to be an issue, but my intention is to provide a more accurate method of determining CR.

Situational modifiers are always going to be a factor one way or another but ask which is better; a system where the only real discrepancies are situational based or one where you are never even sure if the Challenge Rating is accurate to begin with* (as with the official system) and still have situational based modifiers to worry about.

*and is totally misleading at epic levels.

 

[Anubis]

The EL scores already represent the above. However it might be worthwhile clarifying it. Then again your solution could just end up increasing the confusion since the fractional ELs are extreneous to the system. So are fractional CRs but at least they are already integrated into the official rules.

Actually, that's not how your numbers work. In the WotC system, CR determines challenge and XP. In your system, EL does all that. Therefore, WotC CR = UK EL. As such, fractional ELs is SIMPLER because it's what the WotC system already does with it's fractional CRs.

 

[Anubis]

Hey UK, I really hate to say this, but I finally found an inaccuracy in your system. It lies in the CR rating for Vermin Hit Dice (and probably Animal Hit Dice as well). With the bigger monsters (colossal vermin to be precise), the numbers kinda break down. I'm over here right now:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51177

I'm trying to defend the CR 41/EL 22 Colossal Monstrous Scorpion, but after much debate, that number is inaccurate. I know CR 11 is wrong, but so is CR 41. You may wanna consider going back to the older ratings for Hit Dice. You know, where Vermin are rated at 0.3 or 0.25 per Hit Die.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello.

Actually, that's not how your numbers work. In the WotC system, CR determines challenge and XP. In your system, EL does all that. Therefore, WotC CR = UK EL. As such, fractional ELs is SIMPLER because it's what the WotC system already does with it's fractional CRs.

Anything that requires additional numbers cannot be inherantly simpler.

Whether its any 'clearer' or not is a matter for discussion however.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello.

Hey UK, I really hate to say this, but I finally found an inaccuracy in your system. It lies in the CR rating for Vermin Hit Dice (and probably Animal Hit Dice as well). With the bigger monsters (colossal vermin to be precise), the numbers kinda break down. I'm over here right now:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51177

I'm trying to defend the CR 41/EL 22 Colossal Monstrous Scorpion, but after much debate, that number is inaccurate. I know CR 11 is wrong, but so is CR 41. You may wanna consider going back to the older ratings for Hit Dice. You know, where Vermin are rated at 0.3 or 0.25 per Hit Die.

No, my definition of vermin is accurate, however I'll tell you where the problem lies.

Specifically look at the Strength and Constitution scores for this supposed Colossal Creature...it has a Str 29 and Con 14 when it should have a minimum of Str 42, Con 26.

Or judging by the medium version the Colossal version should have Str 45 and Con 30, giving it an additional +8 on all attacks meaning its going to hit even epic armor classes every time. It will also gain +8 damage, however its base damage seems woefully inadequate to begin with and should be at least double the listed amount. Its hit points will increase by 512 giving it 928 hit points...more than the Tarrasque! Its natural armour bonus is also probably misleading and should perhaps be +30 (extrapolating from the medium size version). Also the increase in Con will also affect the DC for the poison.

I mean its ludicrous, do WotC not even know their own system!? I fully expect some changes to this in 3.5 though.

 

[Anubis]

Hello.



Anything that requires additional numbers cannot be inherantly simpler.

Whether its any 'clearer' or not is a matter for discussion however.

I have a question. How does my proposal require additional numbers? It's YOUR proposal that adds numbers. With mine, you can use the fractional CR AS the fraction EL with no changes, whereas your proposal requires translated a fractional CR into a new number, a negative EL. So tell me again, how does mine require additional numbers?

Mine simply uses the system for fractions that's already in place, produces IDENTICAL results to your proposal, and requires less "translation" from the current system (since we'd be using something already in the system). Here is my full proposal.

For getting the fractional CR:

CR 0 = CR 1/2
CR -1 = CR 1/4
CR -2 = CR 1/8
CR -3 = CR 1/16
etc etc etc (as per your current PDF)

Then simple use this number AS the fractional EL, no translation of changes needed. Add fractions as per the current WotC rules.

No, my definition of vermin is accurate, however I'll tell you where the problem lies.

Specifically look at the Strength and Constitution scores for this supposed Colossal Creature...it has a Str 29 and Con 14 when it should have a minimum of Str 42, Con 26.

Or judging by the medium version the Colossal version should have Str 45 and Con 30, giving it an additional +8 on all attacks meaning its going to hit even epic armor classes every time. It will also gain +8 damage, however its base damage seems woefully inadequate to begin with and should be at least double the listed amount. Its hit points will increase by 512 giving it 928 hit points...more than the Tarrasque! Its natural armour bonus is also probably misleading and should perhaps be +30 (extrapolating from the medium size version). Also the increase in Con will also affect the DC for the poison.

I mean its ludicrous, do WotC not even know their own system!? I fully expect some changes to this in 3.5 though.

Ah, thank goodness I'm not the only one who thought the thing was too weak for it's size! I didn't say that because I was under the impression that we were keeping monsters the same for the most part, but now that you've said it, I'm glad I can come out and say such thigns as well.

I KNEW there had to be a reason for the "inaccuracy". Hehehe but it was in THEIR numbers and not yours. I guess that would be the opposite of the "kobold with 25 Strength" issue, eh?

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Howdy Upper_Krust.

I don't recall posting a 'solution'. I do recall posting ideas of that nature that was in effect 'work in progress' but nothing I had finalized. That said, such a 'solution' may end up along those lines.

You see, that's what I thought. I have no idea what Anubis thinks he's going on about.

All right then, solution or no, it's the best idea for rating lower level encounters so far (especially Challenge Ratings that fall between 0 and 0.9. Okay, using this solution, however 'work in progress' it might be, a goblin (CR 0.3) rounds down to CR 0.25 or EL -3.

Now this CR 0.3 rating also assumes that Size is *not* factored into your 0.5 racial calculations.

I asked you "specifically" to clarify this point in my last post, but Anubis suffered from an identity crisis and answered for you. If you could put this point to rest, that would be great.

 

[Anubis]

Howdy Upper_Krust.

You see, that's what I thought. I have no idea what Anubis thinks he's going on about.

All right then, solution or no, it's the best idea for rating lower level encounters so far (especially Challenge Ratings that fall between 0 and 0.9. Okay, using this solution, however 'work in progress' it might be, a goblin (CR 0.3) rounds down to CR 0.25 or EL -3.

Now this CR 0.3 rating also assumes that Size is *not* factored into your 0.5 racial calculations.

I asked you "specifically" to clarify this point in my last post, but Anubis suffered from an identity crisis and answered for you. If you could put this point to rest, that would be great.

The goblin is either 0.8 (if you count his racial abilities which add up to 0.2 total) or 0.6. Under no circumstance short of changing the goblin itself will it be 0.3 no matter how you slice it. Face it, four goblins are EL 3.

Besides, why is this even being debated? PLAYTESTING PROVES THIS TO BE TRUE. Please stop ignoring the playtesting.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

I'll respond directly to the current points tomorrow.

Looking over an email from Anubis I received earlier tonight it seems as if he is meeting Sonofapreacherman halfway on a number of issues even if Anubis might not have perceived he is actually doing so.

Whether any such thing will ever be admitted by either side is of course about as likely as a swift conclusion to the Isreali-Palestinean Peace Negotiations.

But hey I can dream can't I!?