Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread

[kreynolds]

EDIT: UK! If you read this post, don't reply until you read the next post. Thanks!

I really appreciate your insight on all this, by the way. So thanks.

Okay, firstly I think it is overtly and unnecessarily fidgety.

LOL That indeed may be, and I may take care of that later on, but that's how my mind works. I never start with KISS, but I generally arrive at it in the end. I also like the longer numbers, as it helps me arrive at a more accurate figure. Anyways, what about the actual numbers? Here's a comparison...

+1.155: My DR 5/adamantine
+0.500: Your DR 5/adamantine

Obviously, my numbers come out to just over double yours. Maybe, I should use a base modifier and lower the modifier per point of reduction. Let me go see how that looks.

But, I have to ask. Those figures of yours for DR...those are your CR modifiers, right? If so, then that would mean DR 5/adamantine on a monster in WotC would have a CR modifier of only +0.333, or an LA of roughly +0.4.

I wonder how that base modifier would look...


Set 1
+0.5 (base) +0.1/point of damage reduced

...which would make DR 5/magic about +1.11 LA, DR 10/magic about +1.61 LA, DR 15/magic about +2.11 LA, and DR 20/magic about +2.61. Nah. Way too high at the upper levels. Let me try that again...

Set 2
+0.5 (base) +0.05/point of damage reduced

...this would make DR 5/magic about +0.86 LA, DR 10/magic about +1.11 LA, DR 15/magic about +1.36 LA, and DR 20/magic about +1.61. That's a little better. Let me try one more set...

Set 3
+0.5 (base) +0.065/point of damage reduced

...this would make DR 5/magic about +0.935 LA, DR 10/magic about +1.26 LA, DR 15/magic about +1.585 LA, and DR 20/magic about +1.91 LA. Hmm. Interesting.


I know it's still clunky, but I'll look into doing something about that later. Right now, I'm only concerned with the accuracy of the final numbers. I'm favoring Set 2, surprisingly enough, though I'm considering dropping that initial modifier to a +0.4, maybe even lower...


Set 4
+0.4 (base) +0.05/point of damage reduced

...this would make DR 5/magic about +0.76 LA, and DR 20/magic about +1.51 LA.

Set 5
+0.3 (base) +0.05/point of damage reduced

...this would make DR 5/magic about +0.66 LA, and DR 20/magic about +1.41 LA.


Very interesting. Now for a comparison between your numbers and Set 5 (which I'm diggin' on)...

+0.88: My DR 5/adamantine
+0.500: Your DR 5/adamantine (converts to about +0.333 WotC CR)

+1.63: My DR 20/adamantine
+2.00: Your DR 20/adamantine (converts to about +1.333 WotC CR)

How very, very interesting. I think I might be starting to see the reason you went with multipliers. I'm don't know. Let me look at it for a while.

Again, thanks for your input on this!

 

[kreynolds]

Damn you, UK.

Alright, after playing with the numbers a bit, it looks like using a multiplier, like you did, is the best way to go. Here's what I decided on for determining level adjustment...

+0.08/point of damage reduced

Here's some comparisons using DR 10/magic...

+0.250: Your CR
+0.166: WotC CR (approximate, using your formula)
+0.313: My LA

Now using DR 10/adamantine...

+0.500: Your CR
+0.333: WotC CR (approximate, using your formula)
+0.400: My LA

I like that. A lot. Ironically, my LA comes out 20% lower than your CR, which is about right. So, what do you think?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Sort of. Something I noticed though that you might find interesting: Two-thirds of your CR generally equals WotC CR, right? Well, four-fifths of your CR tends to be really close to WotC ECL/LA. Just a neat little factoid.

Just goes to show - they almost got ECL right.

I really didn't think it was, but I'll take a look at it again. Perhaps the problem is the base modifier (which I really like using, as most abilities lose a lot of their punch as levels go up)...

Instead of base modifiers I use design parameters.

Actually, I did. I just didn't post it. Besides, no distinction is neccessary in the formula. While a distinction must be made between the two when referring generically to "ability score loss", no distinction is neccessary in the formula between damage and drain, as the mechanics are completely different, and as such, I use two different formulae.

I rate ability drain using a separate formula (of which the base modifier might also be a problem, so I'll take a look at that).

Okay.

Generally, so do I. Like I said, mostly it was just to figure out why it was there in the first place. After fiddling with it this morning, I can't come up with any reason, so I'm snipping it out.

I'm not so sure about that. The ability to deal ability score damage goes beyond the power of a feat, IMO.

For a touch attack!? I don't agree.

Even Rogues get the Crippling Strike Feat which works in conjunction with Sneak Attack.

After all, with the wounding property at +2, when was the last time you saw a feat bestow flaming burst at will once per round? Do you disagree?

I do disagree.

What about feats that mimic Bane weaponry (Bane of Enemies); feats that mimic Aligned weaponry (Holy Strike); feats that have bonuses mimicking increases to enhancement bonuses (Weapon Specialisation); feast that mimic more exotic abilities (Vorpal Strike; in this case prerequisites absorbing the disparity).

I also rate bonus feats at LA +0.3/per extra feat, but that's another discussion for another time.

I can't agree with that. Three feats equalling one level, I don't think so.

True.

Word.

Yup. That's a good point, but I still don't recall seeing a feat that bestows flaming or frost at will once per round.

That would be incongruous; but what you should really be asking yourself is have I seen any other special abilities or equivalent enhancement bonuses as feats - and when you do that of course, you realise I am right.

Creature's rarely ever get hit points back for ability damage. That usually only happens with ability drain.

Remember, they are two very different abilities with very different effects. Ability damage is temporary in the same way that hit points come back over time. Ability drain is permanent, and the creature usually gets something back for inflicting it.

I understand the critical part, but ability damage does not automatically give you hit points in return. You're thinking of ability drain.

I am sure I have calculated this into the +0.15/+0.2 dichotomy between damage and drain. It was over a month ago when I rated them, and I can't recollect every facet offhand. But I am confident the result is right.

Which is one thing that most certainly pushes it beyond the power of a feat, IMO.

You are missing the obvious here.

Wounding is a +2 power; therefore it is the equivalent of two feats.

It also does not stack with a critical so it is inherantly weaker than how I would rate a single point of iteritive ability damage (+0.6 to CR; or +3 market bonus)

But I'm not trying to make them less accessible. In fact, that's one thing that I hate about how WotC tends to treat special abilities. I'm simply trying to rate it fairly based upon its usefulness for a PC. Like I said, the base modifier I use may be too high, and that might be the problem. If you're interested though, here's the original formula I was using for Ability Damage (+0.5 (base) +0.15/point of ability damage).

Instead of the base I would advocate a Design Parameter of 2 HD per point of damage/drain.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Howdy. Thanks for replying.

Hey! Thats a given - you know that.

Wild. That's the same that I used for my original formula (though I also included the same base posted above, but again, it might be too high).

I don't know. Seeing as how drain is much more potent than damage, I think I'd have to rate it at least 50%, maybe even 75%, higher than damage.

The issue of permanence in this case isn't really that great (since it can still be restored).

That seems fair, though I include a +0.5 base modifier as well.

Whereas I would advocate a 4 HD/level of energy drain Design Parameter.

Definately, and thinks for lending me a hand with that.

Dude - its me! I live for this stuff.

Right, I just didn't bother posting them. I notice that you've gone to multipliers now? Is that just to simply the math? I tried that at some point but it just felt to clunky.

It was for a number of reasons, overall I think it has worked out for the best.

 

[kreynolds]

Can’t be defeated by any Elements Mummy x2

Important question: Is this barbarian-style DR or is this for hardness? I ask because there's a huge difference, and v3 of your doc doesn't take that into account.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi kreynolds mate!

Damn you, UK.

Alright, after playing with the numbers a bit, it looks like using a multiplier, like you did, is the best way to go. Here's what I decided on for determining level adjustment...

Well I am the Krust!

+0.08/point of damage reduced

Here's some comparisons using DR 10/magic...

+0.250: Your CR
+0.166: WotC CR (approximate, using your formula)
+0.313: My LA

Now using DR 10/adamantine...

+0.500: Your CR
+0.333: WotC CR (approximate, using your formula)
+0.400: My LA

I like that. A lot. Ironically, my LA comes out 20% lower than your CR, which is about right. So, what do you think?

I still like mine better.

Its quicker, easier, more seductive.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Important question: Is this barbarian-style DR or is this for hardness? I ask because there's a huge difference, and v3 of your doc doesn't take that into account.

Barbarian DR

 

[kreynolds]

Instead of base modifiers I use design parameters.

Except in v3 you used both. Kinda double kill, don'tcha think?

For a touch attack!? I don't agree.

Even Rogues get the Crippling Strike Feat which works in conjunction with Sneak Attack.


I do disagree.

What about feats that mimic Bane weaponry (Bane of Enemies); feats that mimic Aligned weaponry (Holy Strike); feats that have bonuses mimicking increases to enhancement bonuses (Weapon Specialisation); feast that mimic more exotic abilities (Vorpal Strike; in this case prerequisites absorbing the disparity).

Like you said, in the case of feats such as these, their prerequisites absorb a lot of the disparity. But, what if there are no prerequisites? That's exactly what happens when you put 1 point of Con damage on a monster. His ability has no prerequisites. He didn't have to purchase particular feats, skills, and levels in order to get that ability. He simply has it. You never see a feat that grants Crippling Strike or the Wounding Property without any prerequisites, and you're not taking that into account (as far as I can tell - you didn't include your design parameter for ability damage). But, if you do happen to know of feats such as those that I mention, then by all means, point them out. But, I do understand that's what design parameters are for.

Still, a design parameter can't cover everything. For example, Constitution damage on a touch attack would be served well to have a design parameter limiting to a certain amount of hit die, this I fully admit. However, it would also be service to include a design parameter that takes into account the usefulness of the ability based upon the type of hit die. In other words, a design parameter limiting 1 point of Constitution damage to blah HD works fine on a Wizard or Fey, but it doesn't take into account the usefulness on a fighter, who can slap you around all day long with ease using touch attacks.

I can't agree with that. Three feats equalling one level, I don't think so.

I don't either. That's why three feats don't equal a level. They equal nine-tenths of a level. I could be pursuaded to drop that down a little though, maybe +0.25 or 0.225/bonus feat.

That would be incongruous; but what you should really be asking yourself is have I seen any other special abilities or equivalent enhancement bonuses as feats...

Such as? Do you mean like the Initiative enhancement from Oriental Adventures? You will hopefully take note that Improved Initiative has no prerequisites, so the fact that the enhancement equals the level in power of a feat is irrelevant. No feat without prerequisites equals the level of power in a shocking burst weapon. As soon as you read this, you'll know I'm right.

I am sure I have calculated this into the +0.15/+0.2 dichotomy between damage and drain.

Perhaps, but that's neither here nor there. I wasn't talking about ability drain. I was talking about a weapon enhancement that deals ability damage, and though ability damage never gives you hit points, you mentioned it anyway. Just pointing out that one has nothing to do with the other, not challenging your numbers. That's all.

You are missing the obvious here.

Wounding is a +2 power; therefore it is the equivalent of two feats.

I disagree. At will, assuming four times per round, I think its the equivalent of 2.5 to 3 feats. However, that does tell me that I need to lower my base down a bit, probably to +0.5.

It also does not stack with a critical so it is inherantly weaker than how I would rate a single point of iteritive ability damage (+0.6 to CR; or +3 market bonus)

True. In that case, I'll go with it being equal to 2.5 to 2.75 feats then.

Instead of the base I would advocate a Design Parameter of 2 HD per point of damage/drain.

That's no doubt ultimately the easiest route. But, it's not perfect.

How does that design parameter take into account the power levels of a Fey and Outsider? It doesn't. A 10HD fey doesn't have as good a BAB, while a 10HD outsider's BAB is twice as good, meaning he's far better at hitting people with touch attacks, meaning the design parameter doesn't take into account that his Ability Damaging touch attack is far more powerful on him than it is on the Fey.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying such a design parameter is flawed; Just that it's too bad it doesn't cover everything (I'm picky that way ).

 

[kreynolds]

I still like mine better.

Its quicker, easier, more seductive.

I just think that +.5 for DR 10/adamantine is a hair too much. That's all. OK, maybe a couple of hairs.

 

[kreynolds]

Barbarian DR

Sweet. Thanks.