Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

In any case, many GMs will give awards for such partial successes, regardless.

I would agree with this. But with a partial success I don't see why a DM has to reverse engineer everything (seems a trifle pedantic). Wouldn't either a flat 'best guess' suffice.

This is rubbish. The DMg tells us that games fall into several types - low, medium, high, and very high levels. It says nothing about which is standard. However...
The standard game starts with players at 1st level, therefore every standard game has to go through levels 1-4.
If you start your game above that, you are using optional rules, therefore you are playing a non-standard game.

I don't want to put words in Anubis mouth* but I think he meant standard EXP progression rather than refering to different measures of power.

*I could end up breaking my Caps Lock...only joking mate.

I don't believe I am the exception. On this thread, two others have said they enjoy low-level play, and only you have argued the opposite view - based on that sampling, you are the exception.

Absolutely, and theres nothing wrong with that.

However, the CR/EL system shows that encounters at low level are more dangerous because of fragility that is the reason for the inflation of EXP when facing challenges at that measure of power.

Also note, I'm playing an epic level game: personally, I prefer to skip the lower levels because I think that characters are oo fragile. But I see that there are plenty of people who enjoy those levels, and my goal was to ensure that such people are alerted to the fact that those levels will zip by faster than they expect, if they do not modify XP at low values.

Thats something I will definately have to point out to people. Then explain how they can easily adjust the EXP figures to compensate ~ should they so wish to do so.

That spans ALL levels... except the low ones

I still standby the system. Mechanically its correct. Philisophically it seems many of you want to prolong levelling up (which is fair enough) but thats hardly an indictment against my system, if anything its a subjective argument.

 

[Eldorian]

The problem with adding feats and abilities before converting to EL is that at low levels, these feats become increadably powerful, compared to high levels where it is often the case that feat means nothing. IE, if your CR and your CR + spell penetration are in the same EL band, then your feat is worthless. If you're level 1, and with spell penetration, you are CR 3, thats, what, EL 7? Compared to your EL 1 opponents? And not all monsters having 50/50 resists I still say is a GOOD THINGtm. They way you have it, every monster would be either spell resistant, or not, which is an on/off ability, and my system alows variation. That way imps can have a little spell resistance, and mind flayers can have a lot. Any creature with high enough SR, through use of your deific abilities or whatever, is basically spending abilities on becoming magic immune. Any creature with high enough spell penetration is basically spending abilities on being able to effect magic immune creatures. I don't really see a problem, as one can do the same with physical attacks by majorly focusing on defence or offence. With my system, every +2 feat, such as spell penetration and greater spell penetration, is an additional 10% chance to penetrate spell resistance, which I believe is how the feats were designed to be balanced. I mean, if your Supa Gawd of Spell "Stickin it where da sun don't shine, baby" has a +20 to over come spell resistance, I think that, for his expenditure of 10 feat equivalents, he should be able to have a 50/50 chance of penetrating a golem's SR of 30.

Eldorian Antar

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Upper_Krust.

You say it take 13.3R moderate encounters to reach level 1. Yes, I see how you arrived at that value (300 / 4 = 75; 1000 / 75 = 13.3R) but when the heck does that ever happen?

Let's look at a typical goblin encounter.

Goblins advance as character class. Rogue is favored.

NPC character class and NPC wealth: +0.9

Darkvision is not added because it does not exceed CR +0.5 (once again, because goblins advance as character class this rule goes into effect).

Small size: –0.75

Total challenge rating: 0.15 (round down) = CR 1/8 (CR –2 said more clearly).

Now put four of the little buggers together and you get EL 2. Send them against a party of four 1st level PCs, and each character nets 112 XP.

This is a highly standard 1st level encounter.

The printed rules would award 75 XP for each goblin. Your system awards 150% that amount. This is the inflated XP at low levels that is being talked about.

I understand that X+4 equals a 50/50 encounter in your system, and that is where the problem lies.

A 50/50 encounter should occur when the ELs of each respective side match up (for example, EL 5 versus EL 5 should be a 50/50 encounter). That is infinitely more intuitive. Yes I know that characters are defined by PEL (not EL) in your system, but that is where your changes should be begin. Define both parties by EL and get rid of PEL. Make equal EL rating a 50/50 encounter and then scale away from that standard in both directions accordingly. Moreover, do away from fractioned challenge ratings and expand Table 1–1A to include negative CR values.

You recently spoke of making your system more clear. These are some of the steps you could be taking.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

I still standby the system. Mechanically it's correct. Philosophically it seems many of you want to prolong leveling up (which is fair enough) but that's hardly an indictment against my system, if anything it's a subjective argument.

There's nothing subjective about it. We want proportionate XP at *all* levels, without inflated XP at low-levels. We want *equally* measured advancement when awarding XP throughout a character's career. This isn't subjectivity. This is universalization.

 

[Anubis]

Upper_Krust.

You say it take 13.3R moderate encounters to reach level 1. Yes, I see how you arrived at that value (300 / 4 = 75; 1000 / 75 = 13.3R) but when the heck does that ever happen?

Let's look at a typical goblin encounter.

Goblins advance as character class. Rogue is favored.

NPC character class and NPC wealth: +0.9

Darkvision is not added because it does not exceed CR +0.5 (once again, because goblins advance as character class this rule goes into effect).

Small size: –0.75

Total challenge rating: 0.15 (round down) = CR 1/8 (CR –2 said more clearly).

Here's your first problem. CR 0.15 rounds to 0, which is CR 1/2 and EL 0, so you should recalculate.

Second, rogue goblins are not the standard. The MM even states directly that the stats given are for warriors, not rogues. Oh, and add in the Darkvision anyway. It belongs in there whether UK wants to put it in or not.

Now put four of the little buggers together and you get EL 2. Send them against a party of four 1st level PCs, and each character nets 112 XP.

This is a highly standard 1st level encounter.

The printed rules would award 75 XP for each goblin. Your system awards 150% that amount. This is the inflated XP at low levels that is being talked about.

The problem here is that the MM underestimates the goblin. Four goblins are almost a 50/50 encounter, NOT a 20% encounter. This was one of the problems with WotC's current system and is one of the problems solved.

I understand that X+4 equals a 50/50 encounter in your system, and that is where the problem lies.

It is? That's how it's already done in the game! CR/EL +4 is an even match even by the CURRENT rules. You're SUPPOSED to get that much XP for a 50/50 challenge!

A 50/50 encounter should occur when the ELs of each respective side match up (for example, EL 5 versus EL 5 should be a 50/50 encounter). That is infinitely more intuitive. Yes I know that characters are defined by PEL (not EL) in your system, but that is where your changes should be begin. Define both parties by EL and get rid of PEL. Make equal EL rating a 50/50 encounter and then scale away from that standard in both directions accordingly. Moreover, do away from fractioned challenge ratings and expand Table 1–1A to include negative CR values.

NO NO NO! If you do that, you are no longer properly rating challenges and you are changing everything from the core system ALTOGETHER! Even by the core rules, CR/EL is based on what is a 20% encounter. This is stated in the book. UK's system simply expands those rules to logical conclusions to give proper XP for encounters.

It still takes 13.33 encounters of CR/EL equal to the party's level to reach the next level. It takes 13.33 EL 1 encounters for a Level 1 party to reach Level 2. The only difference is that UK actually gives factual details (affirmed by playtesting) about what ACTUALLY constitutes an EL 1 ecnounter.

You recently spoke of making your system more clear. These are some of the steps you could be taking.

No, if he takes these steps he's simply going to make the problems within the core system worse. The idea is to more ACCURATELY gauge challenges. If a select few DMs want the low levels to last that much longer, they can either use the current flawed core system or divide UK's numbers by four. Those of us caring more about accuracy than keeping players at lower levels, however, will use this great system.

 

[Anubis]

SR

I still like my fix for the SR problem. It has no flaws whatsoever. If you think you can find flaws in my system, speak now. I make SR a factor without blowing it out of proportion and I also have a good way of determining spell penetration.

Just do it, seriously. It works at ALL levels.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

The problem with adding feats and abilities before converting to EL is that at low levels, these feats become increadably powerful, compared to high levels where it is often the case that feat means nothing. IE, if your CR and your CR + spell penetration are in the same EL band, then your feat is worthless. If you're level 1, and with spell penetration, you are CR 3, thats, what, EL 7? Compared to your EL 1 opponents? And not all monsters having 50/50 resists I still say is a GOOD THINGtm. They way you have it, every monster would be either spell resistant, or not, which is an on/off ability, and my system alows variation. That way imps can have a little spell resistance, and mind flayers can have a lot. Any creature with high enough SR, through use of your deific abilities or whatever, is basically spending abilities on becoming magic immune. Any creature with high enough spell penetration is basically spending abilities on being able to effect magic immune creatures. I don't really see a problem, as one can do the same with physical attacks by majorly focusing on defence or offence. With my system, every +2 feat, such as spell penetration and greater spell penetration, is an additional 10% chance to penetrate spell resistance, which I believe is how the feats were designed to be balanced. I mean, if your Supa Gawd of Spell "Stickin it where da sun don't shine, baby" has a +20 to over come spell resistance, I think that, for his expenditure of 10 feat equivalents, he should be able to have a 50/50 chance of penetrating a golem's SR of 30.

Well firstly, how many CR 1 creatures do you know with spell resistance?

The problem as I see it is that a single deific ability will practically make you completely spell resistant to any being with a caster level equal or less than your CR.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Upper_Krust.

Hiya mate!

You say it take 13.3R moderate encounters to reach level 1.

I presume you mean Level 2 and beyond...?

Yes, I see how you arrived at that value (300 / 4 = 75; 1000 / 75 = 13.3R) but when the heck does that ever happen?

Let's look at a typical goblin encounter.

Goblins advance as character class. Rogue is favored.

NPC character class and NPC wealth: +0.9

Darkvision is not added because it does not exceed CR +0.5 (once again, because goblins advance as character class this rule goes into effect).

Small size: –0.75

Total challenge rating: 0.15 (round down) = CR 1/8 (CR –2 said more clearly).

Now put four of the little buggers together and you get EL 2. Send them against a party of four 1st level PCs, and each character nets 112 XP.

This is a highly standard 1st level encounter.

The printed rules would award 75 XP for each goblin. Your system awards 150% that amount. This is the inflated XP at low levels that is being talked about.

I understand that X+4 equals a 50/50 encounter in your system, and that is where the problem lies.

A 50/50 encounter should occur when the ELs of each respective side match up (for example, EL 5 versus EL 5 should be a 50/50 encounter). That is infinitely more intuitive. Yes I know that characters are defined by PEL (not EL) in your system, but that is where your changes should be begin. Define both parties by EL and get rid of PEL. Make equal EL rating a 50/50 encounter and then scale away from that standard in both directions accordingly. Moreover, do away from fractioned challenge ratings and expand Table 1–1A to include negative CR values.

You recently spoke of making your system more clear. These are some of the steps you could be taking.

Yes the figures are inflated at very low level (but not arbitrarily) - this represents the danger inherant at those levels as outlined by the system.

The system is flexible enough to support your ideas but I don't plan to incorporate them as standard. However, I may mention it as an option for those who want to stifle advancement.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

There's nothing subjective about it.

I disagree.

We want proportionate XP at *all* levels, without inflated XP at low-levels.

If you don't want EXP determined as befits the challenge then by all means change it, just don't ask me to agree with what is quintessentially an arbitrary decision.

We want *equally* measured advancement when awarding XP throughout a character's career. This isn't subjectivity. This is universalization.

Universalisation at the expense of accuracy, sounds like the WotC philosophy we are trying hard to revise.

 

[Eldorian]

Re: SR

I still like my fix for the SR problem. It has no flaws whatsoever. If you think you can find flaws in my system, speak now. I make SR a factor without blowing it out of proportion and I also have a good way of determining spell penetration.

Just do it, seriously. It works at ALL levels.

No, your system has a flaw, the same as UK's. That is, you rate SR based on a number that scales with level, when SR is a relative number. IE, at high enough levels, SR rates more CR than magic immunity, which is simply silly. My system makes it a relative number, which relates to CR and scales nicely. Your system requires calculating CR, then calculating SR, then going back and recalculating CR, and recalculating SR, until you fall into the round off errors of CR. Never claim to be without flaws. You predispose yourself to denial.

Originally posted by Upper_Krust
Well firstly, how many CR 1 creatures do you know with spell resistance?

The problem as I see it is that a single deific ability will practically make you completely spell resistant to any being with a caster level equal or less than your CR.

Well, feats matter too much for CRs 1-3, which you can find many creatures with SR, and it's bad at levels 15+, where your feats can sometimes not matter at all. I'd be quite pissed if I had +2 more spell penetration than an ally, yet the EL chart puts us both at the same level for spell resistance penetration. After all, I put a precious feat into the ability. As for your singe deific ability.. perhaps it's not the system thats at fault, but how you're rating that ability? The system works fine for epic levels out of the ELH. Explain to me this diefic ability. And why not make a counter diefic ability. After all, I suggested that spell penetration cost half so much as spell resistance. If diefic abilitys grant +1 CR, ie, +10 SR, then you could easily make a diefic ability that grants +20 Spell penetration.

Eldorian Antar