Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread

[Matrix Sorcica]

Design parameters

Hi there UK!

Some quick questions about the design parameters.

Now, as I see it, the +1.5 CR for increasing size from let's say medium to large, includes the ability mods (+8 str, -2 dex, +4 con) and anything beyond that should affect CR separately, right?
The stats are a +1CR increase, so is reach worth +0.5 CR and is natural armor adjustment included as well? If it is, you need to clarify that in the document, I think.

Seem to remember that you rated the half-ogre at +1.3 CR. I think that indicates you do not include natural armor.

Comments?

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Eldorian.

Sure, goblins are cowardly and have a poor grasp of strategy, right out of the book, but also right out of the book, they use what few advantages they have, numbers and malicious ingenuity. They fight dirty and with numbers, ie, gang up on one guy, coup de grace him when he goes down, repeat.

So far the only thing you've been good at is repeating me. I just finished saying as much.

I play goblins as little more than a nuisance in small numbers (I.E four of them), and as a force to reckoned with when their numbers swell (I.E. much greater than four of them).

Did I need to translate this for you? I thought only Anubis needed to be hand-held. You guys share a surprising lot in common.

Hmmm... is there a difference?

You had the misconception that high level characters are as fragile as low level ones, and that 4 goblins is a cakewalk encounter for a 1st level party.

It's far from a misconception; given a powerful enough opponent, like a very old prismatic dragon, 20th level characters can become as fragile as 1st level characters. The 20th level characters may have "teleport away" options available to them, but I'm pretty darn sure a prismatic dragon can suppress such magic and then destroy the party in melee.

But four standard goblins against a typical 1st level party? The goblins may as well be fish in a barrel. One on one odds do not favor goblins. No matter how the crazy the bookie, he's going to loose money.

 

[Eldorian]

Sigh.. you have selective reading. What about the goblin tendancy to use dirty tricks? And knowing how to fight in numbers means knowing group tactics, such as swarming single foes, as I suggested.

Do you seriously think that UK's system takes into account the fact that you play goblins to be weaker than thier stats indicate based on flavor text? They have average intellegence, ergo, the system should say they fight like your average foe. You are still basing your dislike of the experience gained at low levels due to the goblin issue. If you insist on playing goblins dumb, then thats a situational modifier for exp. Rate them lower, don't complain about the system. The problem with breaking the lower CRs up is that at lower levels minor abilities that have little effect in the game end up having a large effect in the game, such as your opponent's dark vision and such.

Originally posted by Sonofapreacherman
It's far from a misconception; given a powerful enough opponent, like a very old prismatic dragon, 20th level characters can become as fragile as 1st level characters. The 20th level characters may have "teleport away" options available to them, but I'm pretty darn sure a prismatic dragon can suppress such magic and then destroy the party in melee.

You simply don't get it, do you? By frail, we don't mean in comparison to opponents that are vastly more powerful than the party. We mean in comparison to equal and lesser opponents! OF COURSE the dragon dines on adventurer that night, but that's besides the point. I'm saying that a first level party can suffer serious casualties from like CR opponents, such as orcs and goblins. To bring your example down to low levels, it's like saying that a first level party can suffer serious casualties when facing a medusa. Yah.. no doubt about that.. DID YOU HAVE A FREAKIN POINT?!?!?

My point: I've seen 2 orcs (EL +1) kill half the party and end the adventure. First level characters are fragile.
Your point: An old prismatic dragon (EL +9) could do the same to a level 20 party, therefore both parties are equally fragile.

Seriously. Admit that higher level characters are less fragile than lower level ones. And by fragile I mean, "Likely to die when faced with appropriate challenges." And appropriate challenge means "any encounter such that the EL of the encounter is equal to the PEL of the party"


Eldorian Antar

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Eldorian.

What about the goblin tendency to use dirty tricks? And knowing how to fight in numbers means knowing group tactics, such as swarming single foes, as I suggested.

Four goblins swarm fight a single opponent in a party of four? Let them. The rest of the party will flank and trounce the goblins in one round. I thought you said your tactics for playing goblins were intelligent? I prefer to play goblins with a something of a survival instinct, you know, to account for that average Intelligence of theirs.

By frail, we don't mean in comparison to opponents that are vastly more powerful than the party. We mean in comparison to equal and lesser opponents! OF COURSE the dragon dines on adventurer that night, but that's beside the point. I'm saying that a first level party can suffer serious casualties from like CR opponents, such as orcs and goblins. To bring your example down to low levels, it's like saying that a first level party can suffer serious casualties when facing a medusa. Yah... no doubt about that.. DID YOU HAVE A FREAKIN POINT?!?!?

And there it is. Your inner Anubis manifested.



Yes I made a point. A long time ago now. You still haven't picked up the pieces of your own fractured misunderstanding. My point was that fragility is irrelevant to Upper_Krust's CR system, because fragility is universal; 1st level characters do not have a monopoly on fragility. Any level of character can be fragile. Go back and check my original point if you don't believe me. Go on, really. See the mountain you have made out of a molehill.

Moreover, I also said that *any* challenge rating system, including Upper_Krust's, should take into account the full spectrum of "fodder" to "nemesis" opponents for every level of party. Rating lower level opponents with whole numbered CRs wasn't accomplishing that.

Perhaps you understand now, or is any more instruction required?

 

[Eldorian]

Sigh.. you have selective reading.

My point: I've seen 2 orcs (EL +1) kill half the party and end the adventure. First level characters are fragile.
Your point: An old prismatic dragon (EL +9) could do the same to a level 20 party, therefore both parties are equally fragile.

Seriously. Admit that higher level characters are less fragile than lower level ones. And by fragile I mean, "Likely to die when faced with appropriate challenges." And appropriate challenge means "any encounter such that the EL of the encounter is equal to the PEL of the party"


Eldorian Antar

 

[Anubis]

Look, there is NO NEED to change ANY of the numbers from the current version. No need to break things into fractional CRs, no need to change how CR translates to EL when CR is below 0, no need for any of these changes being brought about by sonofapreacherman or demiurgewhateverhisnameis.

Stop calculating, everybody. PLAYTESTING bears the fact that the CURRENT numbers are 100% accurate. I have used all the monsters presented here and debated about in actual adventures within the last two weeks, and I can assure you that two goblins ARE slightly more than a 20% challenge (although just barely) and that the EL to PEL ratios are indeed correct.

If you don't like the XP awards, simple increase the PEL! Don't try to make a good system less accurate, though!

Calculating those franctional CRs and all that crap is overly pedantic, not to mention the whole thing sounds terribly arbitrary.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Anubis.

Your idea of PLAYTESTING does not inspire me with confidence.

-----

Upper_Krust.

Personally, I like the use of 1/3 increments (the 8-11 goblins scenario against a 1st level party). The actual playtesting I have done seems to support those numbers.

That said, I'm pretty sure the golden mean around here will lean towards the use of 1/2 increments (the 6-7 goblins scenario).

What's you opinion on the matter?

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Eldorian.

I just noticed you posted again. I must have overlooked it as you didn't post anything new.



Word of advice. If you're trying to make some kind of point (which still seems completely unrelated to anything I originally posted), repeating yourself is usually self-defeating.

 

[Dark Wolf 97]

Hello all!

Originally posted by Anubis

Look, there is NO NEED to change ANY of the numbers from the current version. No need to break things into fractional CRs, no need to change how CR translates to EL when CR is below 0, no need for any of these changes being brought about by sonofapreacherman or demiurgewhateverhisnameis.

Exactly! I as well, have been playtesting the system and happen to agree that, while its not perfect, its damn well close!

And my idea play testing should inspire confidence.

And as far a fragileness goes - everything can be fragile, when compared to something 10 X more powerful, but 1st level characters have more fragileness when it comes to facing EL + or - 1 challenges.

 

[Anubis]

Personally, I like the use of 1/3 increments (the 8-11 goblins scenario against a 1st level party). The actual playtesting I have done seems to support those numbers.

You must either give your PCs LOTS of breaks or play goblins incredibly dumb if your PCs, at Level 1, can defeat 8-11 goblins using only 20% of their resources. Any decent DM will tell you that 8-11 goblins is 50/50 OR WORSE.