Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread

[Sonofapreacherman]

Anubis.

Besides, it's easy to shoot holes in this now that I've studied your numbers.

Your most telling statement yet. So you *just* studied the numbers for the first time? Here's some advice for you Anubis ... do that more in the future before expressing your spontaneous opinions. It might save you some added embarrassment.

You obviously failed to calculate these creatures. BOTH rate at CR 0.800 exactly. Oh, wait, lemme guess . . . You didn't take all the goblins' bonus abilities into account! Yeah, you can't forget the +4 racial bonus to Move Silently, the +6 bonus to Ride checks, and the Mounted Combat feat. Orcs come in at CR 0.600 on the dot. That's right . . . That makes goblins AND hobgoblins AND orcs CR 2/3 and thus EL 0, making four of any of them EL 4!

Now I know what you'll say, you'll try to say not to count the bonus goblins stuff because it only applies when they're mounted.

I won't even say that much. In the same way that Upper_Krust subsumes all of those racial bonuses into their existing challenge ratings (I.E. abilities like rapier and bow proficiencies, dodge bonuses against giants, etc.) the bonuses you are referring to are also subsumed into his existing calculations.

Nothing has changed since the last time you blinked Anubis.

Unfortunately, the system says to take ALL things into account REGARDLESS of whether it's used or not, which kills your argument. Of course you'll also probably play the Darkvision trump card, right?

Well, even funnier is that EVEN IF you discount the goblins' bonuses and the Darkvision, the results are STILL THE SAME! Discounting all that stuff, goblins come in at CR 0.200 (STILL CR 0 and thus CR 2/3), hobgoblins come in at CR 0.600 (STILL CR 0 and thus CR 2/3), and orcs come in at CR 0.400 (STILL CR 0 and thus CR 2/3)!

Next, you'll probably say to drop all racial modifiers that don't collectively add up to more then 0.5, and I'm ready for that as well. Goblins and hobgoblins come in at 0.200 in total racial abilities and orcs come in at 0.000 in total racial abilities. That leaves only their class rating. All three count as warriors (stated outright as such in the book) and thus all three come in at 0.600 overall not counting any racial abilities whatsoever. Guess what? All three are STILL CR 2/3 and thus EL 0

See above, and I might add, what a waste of your own time trying to fight it.

Here's the actual breakdown, adding NPC wealth to be fair. The only new feature is goblin speed.

Small Size: CR -0.5
Speed +10: CR +0.1
Warrior Level 1: CR +0.6
NPC wealth: +0.1

CR 0.3 still rounds down to CR 1/4 or El -3. Nothing has changed.

Ya' know, what makes it EVEN funnier is that MY proposal lowers the value of goblins to EL 1/2 and makes four of them EL 3! So now my way rates them lower than yours!

Do you actually read these posts? How is CR 1/2 lower then CR 1/4 or CR 1/5? You're retreating back to your 1 + 1 = 3 theories again, aren't you?

I gave ample proof. You simple chose to ignore it.

It's hard to ignore something when *nothing* is offered. Your latest post is no different.

Feel free to try again if you like.

Edited to be more encouraging and less demeaning.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello.

Here's the actual breakdown, adding NPC wealth to be fair. The only new feature is goblin speed.

Small Size: CR -0.5
Speed +10: CR +0.1
Warrior Level 1: CR +0.6
NPC wealth: +0.1

CR 0.3 still rounds down to CR 1/4 or El -3. Nothing has changed.

...obviously the last thing I want to do is get involved in this particular tete a tete[i/] but under the current rules (not counting options I am currently exploring)

CR 0.3 (rounded down to 0) = CR 1/2 = EL 0.

See page #1 under 'Rounding Fractions'.

I see how you made the mistake but you don't seem to be allowing for negative scores determined using my system and are taking fractions on '1' as literal fractional CRs.

Of course my above equation to EL is incorrect however, since (as I related a few weeks ago) a Challenge Rating of 1/2 should be EL -1 (since doubling opponents equals EL +2).

 

[Anubis]

Anubis.

Your most telling statement yet. So you *just* studied the numbers for the first time?

"Studied" is the key word. Oh, and "your" is also important. I have looked at your numbers before, but dismissed them as garbage. Further study supported that.

Here's some advice for you Anubis ... do that more in the future before expressing your spontaneous opinions. It might save you some added embarrassment.

You're the only one getting embarrassed around here. I have been proven right time and again and everyone here has agreed to that other than you and demi.

I won't even say that much. In the same way that Upper_Krust subsumes all of those racial bonuses into their existing challenge ratings (I.E. abilities like rapier and bow proficiencies, dodge bonuses against giants, etc.) the bonuses you are referring to are also subsumed into his existing calculations.

WRONG. This is neither stated nor implied ANYWHERE in the rules. Yes, for ECL purposes these things are not given weight, but . . . Then again, it doesn't matter because I gave you numbers that DID ignore the things you just mentioned!

Nothing has changed since the last time you blinked Anubis.

See above, and I might add, what a waste of your own time trying to fight it.

Here's the actual breakdown, adding NPC wealth to be fair. The only new feature is goblin speed.

Small Size: CR -0.5
Speed +10: CR +0.1
Warrior Level 1: CR +0.6
NPC wealth: +0.1

You're a hypocrite. The Small size is counted in the same category as the supposed "subsumed" things! Ya' know, much like it's done with the core PC races.

CR 0.3 still rounds down to CR 1/4 or El -3. Nothing has changed.

Do you actually read these posts? How is CR 1/2 lower then CR 1/4 or CR 1/5? You're retreating back to your 1 + 1 = 3 theories again, aren't you?

It's hard to ignore something when *nothing* is offered. Your latest post is no different.

Feel free to try again if you like.

UK covers this one in his post. So wrong again!

UK, I would like to thank you for responding before me, because I would have gotten nasty. Thankfully, you got here first and corrected him nicely before I got to him.

...obviously the last thing I want to do is get involved in this particular tete a tete[i/] but under the current rules (not counting options I am currently exploring)

CR 0.3 (rounded down to 0) = CR 1/2 = EL 0.

See page #1 under 'Rounding Fractions'.

I see how you made the mistake but you don't seem to be allowing for negative scores determined using my system and are taking fractions on '1' as literal fractional CRs.

Of course my above equation to EL is incorrect however, since (as I related a few weeks ago) a Challenge Rating of 1/2 should be EL -1 (since doubling opponents equals EL +2).

Thank you UK. Also, if you look at the numbers I gave you on messenger, UK, you will see that making CR 1/2 be EL -1 gives IDENTICAL results to just using the fraction itself.

Basically, you propose the following:

CR 1/2 = EL -1
CR 1/4 = EL -3
CR 1/8 = EL -5
etc etc etc

I'm proposing the following:

CR 1/2 = EL 1/2
CR 1/4 = EL 1/4
CR 1/8 = EL 1/8
etc etc etc

Doing the calculations, however, the two above proposals are identical in every way! The reason mine is better is because of two reasons:

1) Mine is simpler.

2) It does take as much adjustment and gets rid of the pedantic negative EL numbers, leaving us with a system of counting fractions identical to the current system so as to make for minimal relearning.

 

[Eldorian]

Hey all, finally back after being feed up with enworld's technical difficulties.

Sonofapreacherman:

When I quoted myself, I was repeating a large part of my post which you failed to comment on at all. You accused me of not reading your posts in total. Now you stand accused.

I begin to wish you would just outright insult me. Here I was thinking that your posts attempted to make some sort of arguement, and had thinly veiled insults in them, when in fact you were only posting to supply the veil for said insults. If you would simply dispense with the veil, I would have known to simply ignore you.

Anubis:

These fractional ELs are a bad idea. If EL +4 is a 50/50 fight, and x number of opponents is EL +4, and Monster Y is CR 1/4, EL 1/4, then x number of Y is EL 4.25. How the hell do I interpret EL 4.25? Going into negatives allows the system to remain consistant, ie, whole numbers for ELs.

UK: I still maintain that the factors for calculating CR are too impercise to work at a fractonal level. Any system that ignores the difference between elite stats and straight tens has no right to claim that it is accurate to anything less than a whole CR, if it can even make that claim.

Eldorian Antar

 

[Anubis]

Anubis:

These fractional ELs are a bad idea. If EL +4 is a 50/50 fight, and x number of opponents is EL +4, and Monster Y is CR 1/4, EL 1/4, then x number of Y is EL 4.25. How the hell do I interpret EL 4.25? Going into negatives allows the system to remain consistant, ie, whole numbers for ELs.

Oh! I guess I need to explain better after all. Handle fractions exactly as they're handled now in the WotC rules.

If one monster is CR 1/4 and thus EL 1/4, FOUR such monsters are 1/4 * 4, or EL 1 on the dot. As I said, this actually comes up with identical results as UK's proposed negative EL system except people using the current WotC rules will more easily adjust as they won't have to learn the negative EL stuff, which is already pedantic and unnecessary.

UK: I still maintain that the factors for calculating CR are too impercise to work at a fractonal level. Any system that ignores the difference between elite stats and straight tens has no right to claim that it is accurate to anything less than a whole CR, if it can even make that claim.

Eldorian Antar

I honestly don't think that the stats make that great a difference at such levels unless you get silly with them (like if you gave a goblin 25 Strength or something along those lines). As long as you keep the stats as they are, the numbers work fine. If that's not enough, just use the design parameter to take the stats into account if something looks "off" as that's what the parameter is there for. It's just not needed in "normal" situations.

For PCs with less stats, I would be tempted to come up instead with a PEL modifier. It is my experience that through normal rolling, PCs get stats far above average MOST of the time. For DMs using the 3d6 methods and such, I'd give maybe a PEL penalty of -1 or -2 to account for that. MAYBE. Again, though, we're talking about the exception and not the standard. I don't know any players who would tolerate any of the 3d6 methods, at least not in this edition.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Howdy Upper_Krust.

CR 0.3 (rounded down to 0) = CR 1/2 = EL 0.

See page #1 under 'Rounding Fractions'.

I see how you made the mistake but you don't seem to be allowing for negative scores determined using my system and are taking fractions on '1' as literal fractional CRs.

Of course my above equation to EL is incorrect however, since (as I related a few weeks ago) a Challenge Rating of 1/2 should be EL -1 (since doubling opponents equals EL +2).

I asked for your clarification on this matter earlier, but I believe your computer was down at the time. As I understand your latest solution (not the one you related a few weeks ago), there would be no negative CR scores. All CR scores would be expressed as fractions, and those fractions would represent increments that each EL bonus (for opponent numbers) advances through.

Meaning a group of three CR 1/16 creatures would be worth EL -4; (EL -7 for CR 1/16) + (EL +3 for three opponents) = -4. If this is not how your system works, then please clarify.

If this is how your system works, then a CR of 0.3 rounds up to CR 1/3 before it rounds up to CR 1/2 (once again, using your latest solution).

-----.

Anubis.

WRONG. This is neither stated nor implied ANYWHERE in the rules.

Then how come everybody seems to know except you?

Yes, for ECL purposes these things are not given weight...

You just answered your own question here.

You're a hypocrite. The Small size is counted in the same category as the supposed "subsumed" things! Ya' know, much like it's done with the core PC races.

Excuse me? On the one hand you count CR scores for darkvision (when they are clearly subsumed), but then you scream blue murder when size is counted? If anybody is eating crow, that would be you friend. Furthermore, if racial abilities that extend above +0.5 are counted, then by logical extension racial abilities which drop below -0.5 should also be counted. The more important question is ... does size count as a racial ability or not?

Upper_Krust.

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question, but I think it would be best clarified by you.

UK covers this one in his post. So wrong again!

UK, I would like to thank you for responding before me, because I would have gotten nasty.

Haha! I love it.

Anubis: "I could've taken him if... if... if you hadn't gotten here to stop me Upper_Krust!"

You're hysterical Anubis.

I'm waiting for clarification on the CR point. See above.

Basically, you propose the following:

CR 1/2 = EL -1
CR 1/4 = EL -3
CR 1/8 = EL -5
etc etc etc

I'm proposing the following:

CR 1/2 = EL 1/2
CR 1/4 = EL 1/4
CR 1/8 = EL 1/8
etc etc etc

This is perhaps the sweetest victory of all. It started with an idea that you were dead set against (without, apparently, even examining the numbers), and now you support the idea with your own revisions. Thank you Anubis. You just made my day.



-----

Eldorian.

When I quoted myself, I was repeating a large part of my post which you failed to comment on at all.

And here I thought you quoted yourself again just because you liked the look of your own words (as opposed to the sound of your own voice).

Seeing as how it's still unclear in your mind, you were arguing a point that I wasn't even contesting. You may as well be playing ball with the curb or boxing with your own shadow. Once you pick your pick yourself up, join the ongoing debate if you feel so inclinded. Or don't. I don't care either way.

 

[Anubis]

I asked for your clarification on this matter earlier, but I believe your computer was down at the time. As I understand your latest solution (not the one you related a few weeks ago), there would be no negative CR scores. All CR scores would be expressed as fractions, and those fractions would represent increments that each EL bonus (for opponent numbers) advances through.

This hasn't even even been thought of, mainly because it's not possible within the current system! Sometimes the CR WILL drop below 0! That's where the fraction come from! Haven't you been paying attention? It goes like so:

CR 0 = CR 1/2
CR -1 = CR 1/4
CR -2 = CR 1/8
etc etc etc

UK has only proposed adding a few denominations in there (unnecessary ones at that), but those changes don't help you out at all and in fact make things worse for you for the most part.

It seems to me you always go asking for clarifications when you're proven wrong or don't like what you hear.

Meaning a group of three CR 1/16 creatures would be worth EL -4; (EL -7 for CR 1/16) + (EL +3 for three opponents) = -4. If this is not how your system works, then please clarify.

That is how the transition from CR to EL works under his proposed changes, yes.

If this is how your system works, then a CR of 0.3 rounds up to CR 1/3 before it rounds up to CR 1/2 (once again, using your latest solution).

This, however, is wrong. The base CR to standard CR translations are not from the literal numbers but from the rounded numbers. See above for details.

Anubis.

Then how come everybody seems to know except you?

Everybody? You seem to be the only one acknowledging such things. Besides, even if you count none of that stuff, they still come out at CR 0.6!

You just answered your own question here.

Excuse me? On the one hand you count CR scores for darkvision (when they are clearly subsumed), but then you scream blue murder when size is counted? If anybody is eating crow, that would be you friend. Furthermore, if racial abilities that extend above +0.5 are counted, then by logical extension racial abilities which drop below -0.5 should also be counted. The more important question is ... does size count as a racial ability or not?

Look like your blindness has caused you to miss yet another point I have made. My POINT was that as far as racial stuff goes, you either count ALL of it or you count NONE of it. If Darkvision doesn't count, neither does size.

Besides, you looked at it wrong. It's if the FINAL tally is below 0.5 you don't count it, at least that's what UK said when discussing the CORE PC RACES (which the goblin isn't one of I might add).

If you were right, then halflings and gnomes would have lower CR/EL ratings than the rest of the core PC races. As such, you are wrong.

Upper_Krust.

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question, but I think it would be best clarified by you.

Haha! I love it.

Anubis: "I could've taken him if... if... if you hadn't gotten here to stop me Upper_Krust!"

You're hysterical Anubis.

I'm waiting for clarification on the CR point. See above.

This is perhaps the sweetest victory of all. It started with an idea that you were dead set against (without, apparently, even examining the numbers), and now you support the idea with your own revisions. Thank you Anubis. You just made my day.

How is this a victory for you? This has been my proposal all along! Oh, that's right, you haven't been paying attention. I have said all along to "use fractions as fractions"!

-----

Eldorian.

And here I thought you quoted yourself again just because you liked the look of your own words (as opposed to the sound of your own voice).

Seeing as how it's still unclear in your mind, you were arguing a point that I wasn't even contesting. You may as well be playing ball with the curb or boxing with your own shadow. Once you pick your pick yourself up, join the ongoing debate if you feel so inclinded. Or don't. I don't care either way.

You're an . . . Oh screw it, I won't say it. I wouldn't be telling you anything you don't already know. One thing I know now is that debating with you is a waste of time because you're not interested in helping the system, you're only interesting in irritating people. On that note, mission accomplished.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello.

UK, I would like to thank you for responding before me, because I would have gotten nasty. Thankfully, you got here first and corrected him nicely before I got to him.

Don't thank me. I am sick and tired of the bad blood in this thread and if it continues beyond this post I won't be answering herein any longer.

I'm just telling you all now to drop this current line of discussion, its not doing anyone any favours. Just leave it. I'll bloody sort it and then when I present the solution you can all bitch at me because seemingly I am the only one who can take it and still come up smiling.

Thank you UK. Also, if you look at the numbers I gave you on messenger, UK, you will see that making CR 1/2 be EL -1 gives IDENTICAL results to just using the fraction itself.

Basically, you propose the following:

CR 1/2 = EL -1
CR 1/4 = EL -3
CR 1/8 = EL -5
etc etc etc

Thats one theory. The trick is of course how you get the numbers of the CRs (determined by my system) to represent the fractional CRs.

I'm proposing the following:

CR 1/2 = EL 1/2
CR 1/4 = EL 1/4
CR 1/8 = EL 1/8
etc etc etc

Doing the calculations, however, the two above proposals are identical in every way! The reason mine is better is because of two reasons:

1) Mine is simpler.

2) It does take as much adjustment and gets rid of the pedantic negative EL numbers, leaving us with a system of counting fractions identical to the current system so as to make for minimal relearning.

The EL scores already represent the above. However it might be worthwhile clarifying it. Then again your solution could just end up increasing the confusion since the fractional ELs are extreneous to the system. So are fractional CRs but at least they are already integrated into the official rules.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello.

UK: I still maintain that the factors for calculating CR are too impercise to work at a fractonal level. Any system that ignores the difference between elite stats and straight tens has no right to claim that it is accurate to anything less than a whole CR, if it can even make that claim.

Generally I would agree with you because you are right.

However, as I see it exploring this idea at really low levels is actually more accurate than not exploring it. This is why the idea is giving me pause.

I still haven't decided yet whats for the best yet.

But its obvious a kobold is not the same challenge as a 1st-level NPC.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy Upper_Krust.

Hello.

I asked for your clarification on this matter earlier, but I believe your computer was down at the time. As I understand your latest solution (not the one you related a few weeks ago), there would be no negative CR scores.

But there will always be negative scores determined using my system. Its how we decipher those negative scores that is the problem.

All CR scores would be expressed as fractions,

Whether they are expressed as fractions or not the initial numbers could plausibly still be negative and theres no way to avoid this fact.

and those fractions would represent increments that each EL bonus (for opponent numbers) advances through.

Meaning a group of three CR 1/16 creatures would be worth EL -4; (EL -7 for CR 1/16) + (EL +3 for three opponents) = -4. If this is not how your system works, then please clarify.

Thats the plan, yes.

If this is how your system works, then a CR of 0.3 rounds up to CR 1/3 before it rounds up to CR 1/2 (once again, using your latest solution).

I don't recall posting a 'solution'. I do recall posting ideas of that nature that was in effect 'work in progress' but nothing I had finalised. That said, such a 'solution' may end up along those lines.

At any rate the current stipulation is to always round fractions down.

The key factor is how to break down scores between 0 and 0.9.

Obviously the kobold and 1st-level NPC example is relevant in that they both lie between these figures but are markedly different in terms of the challenge they represent.