Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread

[Sonofapreacherman]

...surely a small creature is -0.5 CR.

Indeed it is. My mistake. Try as I might to redeem your CR system at lower levels, it was clearly impossible. Your system rates goblins at CR 0.20 (CR 1/2). Meaning that a party of four 1st level PCs will get 225 XP each (300% of the printed values) for the defeat of four typical goblins. That's identical to the XP earned for defeating the same number of hobgoblins. Your system does not simply inflate XP at lower levels. It is broken at lower levels.

Thats simply untrue. As you well know EXP is not arbitrarily 'ramped up' but instead consistent with the CR/EL rules presented.

Consistent with rules that are broken; see example above. This does not solve the problem. Referring to broken rules as a justification for your argument places it on even shakier ground than it was already standing on.

Consistency is irrelevant when it is inaccurate.

I couldn't agree more. Your equations for lower-level encounters are consistent within themselves, but wholly inaccurate; see example above.

Then stop putting the 'cart before the horse' and show me that the equations are wrong.

Forget about putting the cart before the horse. I have put the mountain in front of the man, and still you refuse to see it. Once again, your requested evidence is found in the example above.

The only sacrifice I made to the equation was the EL jump from CR 1 to 2 ~ which should have been +3 (as opposed to +4). Other than that its as accurate as you will get as far as I can see.

Then that is a sacrifice you cannot afford to make. Ultimately, your system would be served best by making it as intuitive as possible by disregarding the WotC X+4 = moderate encounter structure. You wouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater either. You would be starting from the ground up, but with all your prep-work already done.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Indeed it is. My mistake. Try as I might to redeem your CR system at lower levels, it was clearly impossible. Your system rates goblins at CR 0.20 (CR 1/2). Meaning that a party of four 1st level PCs will get 225 XP each (300% of the printed values) for the defeat of four typical goblins. That's identical to the XP earned for defeating the same number of hobgoblins. Your system does not simply inflate XP at lower levels. It is broken at lower levels.

I don't agree.

While you believe the WotC EXP progression is already too fast (which is a fair enough), for me its the default standard I am working towards. Yes my system does grant even more EXP than the official method at low levels, but this is due to the relationship between CR and EL at those levels.

Consistent with rules that are broken; see example above. This does not solve the problem. Referring to broken rules as a justification for your argument places it on even shakier ground than it was already standing on.

On the contrary I have already explained time and time again my reasoning for the CR/EL relationship.

I couldn't agree more. Your equations for lower-level encounters are consistent within themselves, but wholly inaccurate; see example above.

Based on my system a group of six or seven goblins would be a 50/50 encounter for a party of four 1st level PCs. Personally I stand by that.

...of course if you play the goblins as mere cannon-fodder then its unlikely they will represent the full extent of their rating.

Forget about putting the cart before the horse. I have put the mountain in front of the man, and still you refuse to see it. Once again, your requested evidence is found in the example above.

Even with your example all it would take would be one or two lucky rolls and your PCs would still be defeated. The EXP simply bears this out.

Then that is a sacrifice you cannot afford to make. Ultimately, your system would be served best by making it as intuitive as possible by disregarding the WotC X+4 = moderate encounter structure. You wouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater either. You would be starting from the ground up, but with all your prep-work already done.

That has nothing to do with how intuitive the system is - its simply a matter of wanting slower than standard progression, or not; as the case may be.

If you want slower progression then fair enough, I respect your opinion and I am happy to both mention progression (which is slightly faster using my system at low levels) and include a reduced rate as optional, but I don't see any grounds to change one of the fundamentals of the system based on any 'evidence' shown thus far.

 

[Eldorian]

hello mate!



The whole point of changing Spell Resistance in the first place is to avoid it becoming a black and white scenario at epic/immortal levels. As I see it the changes you propose bring us right back to where we have started - frankly I am starting to wonder if its worth even including optional rules for this at all.

My whole point in changing SR wasn't to avoid making it black and white. My point was to change it so that it worked with your system, as it was intentionally designed to function with the old system. It's you that has another goal, well intentioned as it might be. I'm not so much as creating an optional rule, but modifiing the existing rule to function with revised CRs and ELs.

How is that your system? The two are nothing alike save for the fact that they're both based around EL. I see no other similarities between the two proposals.

Take X amount of CR worth of SR in your system, and in my system. See how hard it is to penetrate for various ELs, neglecting Spell Penetration feats, which you changed. Look deeper, friend.

Eldorian Antar

 

[Anubis]

UK, this guy (Sonofapreacherman, not Eldorian) is hopeless. He thinks goblins and the like are cannon fodder, or as he put it, a carpet of meat. Sonofapreacherman, we hear everything you're saying. You're simply not hearing us tell you that YOU'RE WRONG.

If four goblins are a carpet of meat in your campaign, you are playing goblins wrong, plain and simple. I have used this encounter numerous times, and at Level 1, it is ALWAYS a severe challenge. Goblins are not cannon fodder to people at Level 1. In fact, they can even challenge characters at Level 2. Also, goblins and hobgoblins are nearly IDENTICAL in power, which is why they are both rated exactly the same. Sure, hobgoblins have 1 more hit point and a little bit more strength, but they also lack several things the goblins have, including many skill modifiers and the larger ranged attack value. I see no true difference in the level of challenge between goblins and hobgoblins, and playtesting bears this to be a fact. Anyway, the MM underestimates goblins GREATLY. That much is fact, at least when the DM does his job right.

Oh, and as to your comment about things of the same CR/EL being the same power, THEY ALREADY ARE RATED LIKE THAT IN UK'S SYSTEM. I don't see where you find any proof to the contrary. If this is about PEL, understand that if you give XP and base challenge on EL instead, your PCs will die far more often and gain far less XP. Rating PCs by EL instead of PEL gives you some of the following problems:

If you rate the party by EL for XP and challenges (instead of PEL), you are saying that a standard encounter for a Level 1 party (EL 5) is a BUGBEAR (CR 2/EL 5). I'm sorry, but more than one or two bugbears per adventure at Level 1 will cause fatalities. THAT breaks the system.

Basically, since the basis of encounters is 13.33 of same EL to gain a level, you must give encounters based on what is a 20% challenge and NOT a 50/50 challenge, else your PCs will get maybe one or two fights in before having to rest. The system is DESIGNED so that a party can face four or five encounters of equal EL before resting. This is a GOOD thing. If you deny that, you are simply wrong.

This system is designed to be used in COMMON situations, not for DMs who want to condemn their players to death and low levels forever. Most players (80%+) HATE Levels 1-3 . . . WITH A PASSION . . . The current rules take this into consideration, and so does UK's system. That does not mean it was designed to force these levels to go by quickly, though. Instead, the system more accurately determined PROPER challenges, since people hate those levels because of character frailty more than anything. Character frailty is because DMs use the incorrect numbers from the books that underestimate almost everything. As such, this fixes the problem. Are XP awards inflated? They will seem high if you use the encounters you're used to. Build a bridge, get over it, and tone down the encounters to what is appropriate.

Sorry to sound so upset, but this constant bickering is starting to wear my nerves thin. I don't like arguing with brick walls. I will not debate with you anymore, as you refuse to listen to common logic.

 

[Anubis]

Immunities can be trumped whereas resistances must be overcome ~ so in some ways resistance is better than immunity.

Dude . . . What are you smoking? How can immunities *ever* be trumped? I can't think of even one way to cancel an immunity. Resistance, however, can be trumped, and easily at that seeing as resistance is per round and not per attack.

Please explain how immunity can be trumped, 'cause I don't see it.

Take X amount of CR worth of SR in your system, and in my system. See how hard it is to penetrate for various ELs, neglecting Spell Penetration feats, which you changed. Look deeper, friend.

Eldorian Antar

I am looking deep, and I ain't seeing it. I see no similarities aside from the use of EL for determining SR. In my system, creatures have a set SR. In your system, SR appears to be totally relative and never set.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

My whole point in changing SR wasn't to avoid making it black and white. My point was to change it so that it worked with your system, as it was intentionally designed to function with the old system.

But isn't that the same thing...

It's you that has another goal, well intentioned as it might be. I'm not so much as creating an optional rule, but modifiing the existing rule to function with revised CRs and ELs.

I think the end result is the same regardless of the intention.

Take X amount of CR worth of SR in your system, and in my system. See how hard it is to penetrate for various ELs, neglecting Spell Penetration feats, which you changed. Look deeper, friend.

Okay I'll do some math tonight.

 

[Eldorian]

Dude . . . What are you smoking? How can immunities *ever* be trumped? I can't think of even one way to cancel an immunity. Resistance, however, can be trumped, and easily at that seeing as resistance is per round and not per attack.

Please explain how immunity can be trumped, 'cause I don't see it.

Indeed you are smoking something UK? I mean, lookit me, I'm a fire elemental, I'm made of fire and immune to fire hahaha! OUCH, that god trumps my immunity?!?! Damn, I wish I had fire resistance like, say, a shambling mound, which is made of burnable plant matter. Then I'd still have some protection against this lamer god.

I am looking deep, and I ain't seeing it. I see no similarities aside from the use of EL for determining SR. In my system, creatures have a set SR. In your system, SR appears to be totally relative and never set.

Did you try my little experiment? You'll get the same amount of resistance per CR. That is why they are fundamentally the same system. Mine is just easier to rate. And it is in your system that creatures have a relative SR, as in, if you advance in level, it goes up. In my system, SR 10 is the same no matter what level you are, and it doesn't need to raise in level to be effective at higher levels.

Although, looking at how extremely high CRs effect EL, I'm begining to think that SR should be more like AC, in that it has no effective cap in rating for CR. The only problem with this, is that magic immune creatures need to have their magic immunity increase in CR value as they level to match SR's increases. And it makes it a pain in the buttocks for Drow, and other races with SR increasing per character level, cause it basicaly makes thier racial CR modifier increase as they level. Either that, or you could remove magic immunity, and just give golems and the like extremely high SRs, like EL plus 30. Then you could do UK's add spell penetration before EL conversion thing, although it will still be the case that often times your feats will mean exactly nothing, which I dislike, alot.

Eldorian Antar

P.S. Agreed with Anubis again.. I expect the end of the world any day now.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

I think Anubis is getting carried away (or perhaps should be); of course we know from the past that english is not his first language unless it is typed in upper case. Luckily I possess the polyglot feat...

UK, this guy (Sonofapreacherman, not Eldorian) is hopeless. He thinks goblins and the like are cannon fodder, or as he put it, a carpet of meat. Sonofapreacherman, we hear everything you're saying. You're simply not hearing us tell you that YOU'RE WRONG.

Let me translate this for everyone; I think what Anubis is trying to say is that, although he respects Sonofapreachermans opinion, he doesn't quite agree with it.

If four goblins are a carpet of meat in your campaign, you are playing goblins wrong, plain and simple. I have used this encounter numerous times, and at Level 1, it is ALWAYS a severe challenge. Goblins are not cannon fodder to people at Level 1. In fact, they can even challenge characters at Level 2. Also, goblins and hobgoblins are nearly IDENTICAL in power, which is why they are both rated exactly the same. Sure, hobgoblins have 1 more hit point and a little bit more strength, but they also lack several things the goblins have, including many skill modifiers and the larger ranged attack value. I see no true difference in the level of challenge between goblins and hobgoblins, and playtesting bears this to be a fact. Anyway, the MM underestimates goblins GREATLY. That much is fact, at least when the DM does his job right.

Of course Anubis meant to go on to say how not only that every individual DM plays differently but that how dice rolls can greatly affect low level encounters.

Oh, and as to your comment about things of the same CR/EL being the same power, THEY ALREADY ARE RATED LIKE THAT IN UK'S SYSTEM. I don't see where you find any proof to the contrary. If this is about PEL, understand that if you give XP and base challenge on EL instead, your PCs will die far more often and gain far less XP. Rating PCs by EL instead of PEL gives you some of the following problems:

If you rate the party by EL for XP and challenges (instead of PEL), you are saying that a standard encounter for a Level 1 party (EL 5) is a BUGBEAR (CR 2/EL 5). I'm sorry, but more than one or two bugbears per adventure at Level 1 will cause fatalities. THAT breaks the system.

Basically, since the basis of encounters is 13.33 of same EL to gain a level, you must give encounters based on what is a 20% challenge and NOT a 50/50 challenge, else your PCs will get maybe one or two fights in before having to rest. The system is DESIGNED so that a party can face four or five encounters of equal EL before resting. This is a GOOD thing. If you deny that, you are simply wrong.

But still totally entitled to your opinion.

This system is designed to be used in COMMON situations, not for DMs who want to condemn their players to death and low levels forever. Most players (80%+) HATE Levels 1-3 . . . WITH A PASSION . . .

I think he means enjoy all levels of play but dislike stagnation.

The current rules take this into consideration, and so does UK's system. That does not mean it was designed to force these levels to go by quickly, though. Instead, the system more accurately determined PROPER challenges, since people hate those levels because of character frailty more than anything. Character frailty is because DMs use the incorrect numbers from the books that underestimate almost everything. As such, this fixes the problem. Are XP awards inflated? They will seem high if you use the encounters you're used to. Build a bridge, get over it, and tone down the encounters to what is appropriate.

Meaning that the system is modular enough for you to control progression at the rate you think suits your campaign best.

Sorry to sound so upset, but this constant bickering is starting to wear my nerves thin. I don't like arguing with brick walls. I will not debate with you anymore, as you refuse to listen to common logic.

We all appreciate the measured and polite feedback mate.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Dude . . . What are you smoking?

Your candy ***.

How can immunities *ever* be trumped?

When they are of supernatural origin and your opponent possesses the appropriate portfolio(s) and requisite power.

I can't think of even one way to cancel an immunity.

Then your claims to omniscience fall short of my own.

Resistance, however, can be trumped, and easily at that seeing as resistance is per round and not per attack.

Resistance is not 'trumped' but rather defeated. 'Trumping' denotes supplanting something.

Please explain how immunity can be trumped, 'cause I don't see it.

For enlightenment see above.

I am looking deep, and I ain't seeing it.

YODA:
That is why you fail.

I see no similarities aside from the use of EL for determining SR. In my system, creatures have a set SR. In your system, SR appears to be totally relative and never set.

I think you could have it either way.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Indeed you are smoking something UK? I mean, lookit me, I'm a fire elemental, I'm made of fire and immune to fire hahaha! OUCH, that god trumps my immunity?!?!

1st Ed. Manual of the Planes page 40:

"...Kossuth dwells in a palace built of elemental fire in a hot spot at the centre of the plane. The heat here is so intense that even creatures totally immune to flame, such as fire-elementals, take 1d2 points of damage unless protected by Kossuth."

Damn, I wish I had fire resistance like, say, a shambling mound, which is made of burnable plant matter. Then I'd still have some protection against this lamer god.

Its not quite as black and white as that, no point going into details now.

Did you try my little experiment? You'll get the same amount of resistance per CR. That is why they are fundamentally the same system. Mine is just easier to rate. And it is in your system that creatures have a relative SR, as in, if you advance in level, it goes up. In my system, SR 10 is the same no matter what level you are, and it doesn't need to raise in level to be effective at higher levels.

Although, looking at how extremely high CRs effect EL, I'm begining to think that SR should be more like AC, in that it has no effective cap in rating for CR. The only problem with this, is that magic immune creatures need to have their magic immunity increase in CR value as they level to match SR's increases. And it makes it a pain in the buttocks for Drow, and other races with SR increasing per character level, cause it basicaly makes thier racial CR modifier increase as they level. Either that, or you could remove magic immunity, and just give golems and the like extremely high SRs, like EL plus 30. Then you could do UK's add spell penetration before EL conversion thing, although it will still be the case that often times your feats will mean exactly nothing, which I dislike, alot.

I'll have to look into this further.

P.S. Agreed with Anubis again.. I expect the end of the world any day now.

Yep. All the signs are portents are coming true, soon the prophesised Immortals Handbook will be born unto the world.