Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread

[Anubis]

I would like to clarify something about needing no change. After reading back over the posts, one of the changes proposed is the following:

"EL 1/2 (CR 0) becomes EL -1"
"EL 1/4 (CR -1) becomes EL -3"
etc, etc, etc

WELL . . . The REASON I see no reason to change this is because it creates needless confusion and pedantic calculations. It wasn't until recently that I realized that I was already calculating things this way. You see, I found out right before the last game session about UK meaning for us to calculate CR 1/2 as EL 0 and so on and so forth. Until that point . . .

Well, you see, I calculated things the old way with regard to fractions. In other words, I counted CR 1/2 as EL 1/2, CR 1/4 as EL 1/4, and so on and so forth. I always counted two creatures of EL 1/2 as being EL 1, four of EL 1/4 as being EL 1, etc. Basically, I added fractions until I got to a whole number, and only THEN did I go by the chart. In other words, I ran things like so:

Goblin = EL 1/2
2 Goblins = EL 1 (1/2 * 2 = 1 duh!)
3 Goblins = EL 2 (1.5 opponents equals EL +1, 1/2 * 3 = 1.5!)
4 Goblins = EL 3 (2 opponents equals EL +2, 1/2 * 4 = 2!)
etc, etc, etc

You get the idea. Anyway, I looked over the numbers once more, and I saw that the way I calculated fractions actually comes up with identical results as when counting EL 1/2 as EL -1 and all that. I also noticed that my way of counting fractions better told of the challenges and gave more accurate XP awards, so I decided to stick by it.

I guess all I would ask is that UK uses the numbers AS IS. That means count CR 1/2 AS EL 1/2 and so on and so forth, counting fractions as per the book by adding fractions until you get to a whole number. That is how I playtested, in fact.

Reducing the increments any further, however, as those two suggest, or even introducing fractions above the first whole number . . . Well, I don't think that should be done, plain and simple. Just count fractions as fractions.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

I would like to clarify something about needing no change. After reading back over the posts, one of the changes proposed is the following:

"EL 1/2 (CR 0) becomes EL -1"
"EL 1/4 (CR -1) becomes EL -3"
etc, etc, etc

WELL . . . The REASON I see no reason to change this is because it creates needless confusion and pedantic calculations. It wasn't until recently that I realized that I was already calculating things this way. You see, I found out right before the last game session about UK meaning for us to calculate CR 1/2 as EL 0 and so on and so forth. Until that point . . .

Well, you see, I calculated things the old way with regard to fractions. In other words, I counted CR 1/2 as EL 1/2, CR 1/4 as EL 1/4, and so on and so forth. I always counted two creatures of EL 1/2 as being EL 1, four of EL 1/4 as being EL 1, etc. Basically, I added fractions until I got to a whole number, and only THEN did I go by the chart. In other words, I ran things like so:

Goblin = EL 1/2
2 Goblins = EL 1 (1/2 * 2 = 1 duh!)
3 Goblins = EL 2 (1.5 opponents equals EL +1, 1/2 * 3 = 1.5!)
4 Goblins = EL 3 (2 opponents equals EL +2, 1/2 * 4 = 2!)
etc, etc, etc

You get the idea. Anyway, I looked over the numbers once more, and I saw that the way I calculated fractions actually comes up with identical results as when counting EL 1/2 as EL -1 and all that. I also noticed that my way of counting fractions better told of the challenges and gave more accurate XP awards, so I decided to stick by it.

I guess all I would ask is that UK uses the numbers AS IS. That means count CR 1/2 AS EL 1/2 and so on and so forth, counting fractions as per the book by adding fractions until you get to a whole number. That is how I playtested, in fact.

Reducing the increments any further, however, as those two suggest, or even introducing fractions above the first whole number . . . Well, I don't think that should be done, plain and simple. Just count fractions as fractions.

...or a long convoluted way of saying that we were right all along (without actually admitting it).

 

[Anubis]

...or a long convoluted way of saying that we were right all along (without actually admitting it).

How so? You two are proposing putting things at much lower levels! For one, you claim goblins are EL 1/4, which is incorrect. I believe the system for determining CR is absolutely correct and that goblins are in fact EL 1/2. In addition, I am totally against fractions over 1 to create ELs 2-4 because the jump in power really is as dramatic as 1 to 5 indicates.

I ORIGINALLY thought all along that the fractional CR/EL thing was done as per the book with adding fractions until you get to a whole number. Hell that's how I playtested it to begin with! It wasn't until the last game session that I saw UK say to use CR 1/2 as EL 0 and work from there and the such, and I played one game session with it and didn't like it because everything is off by exactly 1 EL that way.

Why do you think I said "the system needs no changes"? THAT IS WHY. I believe there should be NO changes PERIOD. That includes (to me at least) no changing CR 1/2 to EL 0. Yes, I understand that I misunderstood UK's rating of fractional CRs, but considering all I'm saying is use the numbers as-is, I hardly consider that agreeing with either of you, considering you are wanting to change the numbers, system, and rating of multiple opponents altogether! I totally disagree with you both on all such matters. I am merely saying "use fractions under 1 as-is", nothing more.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

So long as a group of four lower-level opponents (like goblins) rate CR 2, and not CR 4, then the system starts to work at all levels. That is all I have ever cared about. You initially insisted that four goblins were a CR 4 encounter. Now you are saying different. I can respect anybody who admits they were wrong.

Personally, I still think fractioned Challenge Ratings for lower level encounters is the way to go.

 

[Anubis]

Don't confuse CR and EL anymore, man.

Actually, four goblins are EL 3, not EL 2.

By the way, for the record, for a LEVEL 1 PARTY, the differences between EL 3 and EL 4 are negligible, as both are above 20% and below 50/50.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

If 4 goblins are not EL 2, then even your solution is still broken. I support any calculation that results in 4 standard goblins equating to either CR 1/8 or CR –2 (whichever unit of measurement is finally embraced). So far the fractional system Upper_Krust has proposed offers the only solution to that problem, and a tidy one as well.

 

[Anubis]

If 4 goblins are not EL 2, then even your solution is still broken. I support any calculation that results in 4 standard goblins equating to either CR 1/8 or CR –2 (whichever unit of measurement is finally embraced). So far the fractional system Upper_Krust has proposed offers the only solution to that problem, and a tidy one as well.

Don't confuse "you don't like it" with "it's broken". You see, if something is broken, that means it doesn't work in play. Four goblins as EL 3 DOES work in play, it just doesn't work with the way you incorrectly handle goblins is all. EL 3 means the challenge is about a Level 1.5 encounter give or take. Right between Level 1 and Level 2. Playtesting bears this out, plain and simple. Look at it like this . . .

One is EL 1/2, which means a Level 1 party should always win. This much is true. Two goblins thus work out to be EL 1, meaning the party will use 20% of their resources against such an encounter. This is also true, as the goblins will usually get a hit or two in to take away 20% of hit points (considered part of those resources as per the DMG). Now given that, three goblins are EL 2, more than a 20% encounter. This is a DUH since three are more challenging than two. Logically, then, four goblins are EL 3. Playtesting bears this also to be true, plain and simple. The partys will use more than 20% of their resources but still have about a 75% chance of victory for the most part. This is true.

As such, I see you as the problem, not the system. In fact, I see only two people total having any problem with this system, meaning other people's playtesting agrees with mine. In fact, several people have stated this flat out.

Your problem is that you use goblins as cannon fodder and not a serious encounter. Stop it. Once you play goblins correctly, you will have no problem. The standard of the system should work for the majority and work MATHEMATICALLY. IT DOES. You are one of only two people with a problem here. The rest of us know not to underestimate goblins. For you two, it is easy to propose an OPTION where the DM can take his own DMing into account if he DMs easier than usual. Hence my proposal about the optional PEL modifier.

I dunno how many times I can just say "you're wrong" before you get it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

Unfortunately I am having severe computer difficulties at the moment trying to upgrade various components and then being told my hard drive was about to die.

I am on a friends computer at the moment just to let you all know the situation. Not sure when things will be back to normal.

I would ask you all to be nice, but I imagine that will be falling on deaf ears.

Incidently I managed to get my hard drive backed up, so nothing has been permanently lost *touch wood*. But as to any other time oriented repercussions (delays) I cannot say but hopefully I will be back within a few days so I won't have lost too much time, and the 'deadline' is July after all so there shouldn't be any major problems meeting it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Design parameters

Okay, I think I have got things sorted for the meantime.

Hi there UK!

Hiya mate!

Some quick questions about the design parameters.

Fire away.

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?

Yes.

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.

It counts for reach, size modifiers to hit (and be hit), but not Natural Armour.

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

Comments?

As I recall the Half-Ogre had different stats and wasn't exactly 'large'.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Your problem is that you use goblins as cannon fodder and not a serious encounter. Stop it. Once you play goblins correctly, you will have no problem. The standard of the system should work for the majority and work MATHEMATICALLY. IT DOES.

You are so funny. Where is this proof you keep talking about? I love it. You consistently defer to Upper_Krust's calculations, and throw around the word "mathematical" like it's going out of style ... but with no substance. Well, here's your chance to prove yourself Anubis. Upper_Krust's computer is down for the count. Step up to bat. What is this highly lauded mathematical proof you get so much mileage out of without ever once delivering first hand? Ante up.

Right now, the fractional system at lower levels keeps 4 goblins where they belong (at the EL 2 level) and accurately addresses the "fodder" to "nemesis" issue I keep bringing up. Do you even know what I mean by that? Every one of your posts indicates a resounding "no". It helps to know what is being talked about before opening your mouth on the subject. Heck, you just figured out how the fractional system is supposed to work!

You are one of only two people with a problem here.

I could be the only person with a problem here and it still wouldn't change my conviction. So far the only other person embracing my revelation (well, besides Upper_Krust) has been the one logical voice of reason. Just because a stadium full of people screams that 1+1=3 doesn't make them right. I prefer to think outside of that stadium. Feel free to remain inside.

I dunno how many times I can just say "you're wrong" before you get it.

Your voice carries no more authority now than, well ... ever. In fact it carries even less.