Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread

[Upper_Krust]

Hey, UK,

Hi Anubis mate!

have you put in my revisions for the PC/NPC wealth yet?

Nope. But looking at my results I seem to be halving NPC wealth...

Your numbers simply give the NPCs far too little equipment, especially at lower levels.

I propose the following:

PC Wealth: (Level^3)*100
NPC Wealth: [(Level^3)*100]/4

Basically, keep your system for PC wealth, and for NPC wealth, simply take the PC wealth for those levels and divide by four. Simple, ya? On top of that, you get numbers that are pretty close to what treasure an encounter of that level should be worth.

Remember, an NPCs equipment to PCs is worth only half it's actual value. So look at this:

NPC Level 20: 200,000 gp Wealth/100,000 gp Value
Level 20 Encounter: 80,000 gp

See? PERFECT! Well, not perfect, but you get my point. Any which way, it's much better than what you do now.

...One possibility is that we could have:

1/2 NPC Level^3 x 200 GP which I think solves your problem.

However, my problem with tinkering with the original calculations is that it of course interferes with the simple +0.1* mod for NPC wealth

*per level.

Of course this could just be my problem not the NPCs.

 

[Coredump]

UK,

Howdy.

Are you actually not going back to the Rules forum? If so, then I will move my posting to this thread. OTOH, I don't think those talking about the "OT" content were aiming at you, nor even that they were actually upset about anything, just making academic observations.
But either way, let me know what your intentions are and I will adjust accordingly.

PS. I finally finished going through your .pdf and look forward to discussing it with you.

 

[Anubis]

Why is that??

Most treasure gained from NPCs is likely to be unusable by the PCs, and therefore is sold, which nets half the original value. Also, treasure that IS kept is divided based on half the actual value. As such, most treasure being sold and kept is only worth half.

1/2 NPC Level^3 x 200 GP which I think solves your problem.

. . . . . . . Are you trying to be cute with me, UK? That formula comes up with the EXACT SAME RESULTS my method comes up with AT EVERY LEVEL!

How the @#$% did you do that?!

At any rate, that is acceptable.

However, my problem with tinkering with the original calculations is that it of course interferes with the simple +0.1* mod for NPC wealth

*per level.

How so? Your original formula interfered with the 0.1 thing already, seeing as that should implay that NPC wealth is worth exactly half as much as PC wealth. That means that if Level 20 gets 800,000, an NPC should get 400,000. Instead, your old formula had the NPC with a meager 100,000, which was far less than half PC wealth (and also in turn makes those NPCs FAR less powerful than CR would indicate, as such an NPC would be CR 18 and play like half that in actual games).

Of course this could just be my problem not the NPCs.

I would say it's not even an issue. There is no way to make the 0.1 perfect without risking giving too much treasure to PCs as you point out. It's an abstract number at best and there's no real way to set it perfectly. You have to give NPCs enough equipment to survive, but you also gotta keep treasure gains down. I would still almost suggest that you not count wealth seperately, but that would screw with some other numbers.

 

[Upper_Krust]

UK,

Howdy.

Hey Coredump mate!

Are you actually not going back to the Rules forum?

I try and avoid it if possible, but I replied to your latest missive.

If so, then I will move my posting to this thread.

Well, in future I would probably prefer it here that over there.

OTOH, I don't think those talking about the "OT" content were aiming at you, nor even that they were actually upset about anything, just making academic observations.

I hate to engender bad sentiment even if it was unwarranted.

But either way, let me know what your intentions are and I will adjust accordingly.

Post herein if you can. Thanks.

PS. I finally finished going through your .pdf and look forward to discussing it with you.

Sure, thanks for your time.

Some things that have already been corrected since version 1 are:

- Clarifications to when you should or should not factor ability scores.
- Non-ability scores restructured.
- Various Templates restructured including Construct; Ooze; Undead.

Work in progress:

- Revision to Fractional CRs
- Situational Common Denominators
- Full list of MM/ELH CRs to one decimal place.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Most treasure gained from NPCs is likely to be unusable by the PCs, and therefore is sold, which nets half the original value. Also, treasure that IS kept is divided based on half the actual value. As such, most treasure being sold and kept is only worth half.

I wouldn't necessarily say most treasure, certainly not at lower levels. Probably at higher levels and above...

. . . . . . . Are you trying to be cute with me, UK?

Nothing but love for you mate!

That formula comes up with the EXACT SAME RESULTS my method comes up with AT EVERY LEVEL!

How the @#$% did you do that?!

As the cerebral assassin would say: "I am THAT DAMN GOOD!".

At any rate, that is acceptable.

I'll sleep better knowing you are not going to kick up another ruckuss.

How so? Your original formula interfered with the 0.1 thing already, seeing as that should implay that NPC wealth is worth exactly half as much as PC wealth.

Indeed. However the CR modifier is not derived from the wealth itself, but rather from the typical wealth attributed to a given level.

eg.
1st-level PC Wealth = 100GP = CR +0.2
10th-level PC wealth = 100,000GP = CR +2 (1000 times more than level 1)
20th-level PC wealth = 800,000GP = CR +4 (8 times more than level 10)

Without having an actual wealth table/formula, rating CR by wealth alone is impossible.

That means that if Level 20 gets 800,000, an NPC should get 400,000.

Well thats far too much for an NPC. 200,000 would be much more practical.

Instead, your old formula had the NPC with a meager 100,000, which was far less than half PC wealth (and also in turn makes those NPCs FAR less powerful than CR would indicate, as such an NPC would be CR 18 and play like half that in actual games).

Indeed, upon review the old figure was too low.

I would say it's not even an issue.

Well it is an issue; but fortunately I already have the solution.

There is no way to make the 0.1 perfect without risking giving too much treasure to PCs as you point out. It's an abstract number at best and there's no real way to set it perfectly. You have to give NPCs enough equipment to survive, but you also gotta keep treasure gains down. I would still almost suggest that you not count wealth seperately, but that would screw with some other numbers.

As far as I can tell a figure of 0.15/level of NPC wealth is viable...if not pinpoint in accuracy.

Therefore:

PC wealth = +0.2/Level (Level^3 x100 GP)

NPC Wealth = +0.15/Level (Half Level^3 x200 GP)

An alternative method would be (3/4 Level^3 x100 GP) for the NPC. That may actually be easier to implement since it only requires one deviation from the norm.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Most treasure gained from NPCs is likely to be unusable by the PCs, and therefore is sold, which nets half the original value. Also, treasure that IS kept is divided based on half the actual value. As such, most treasure being sold and kept is only worth half.

Please elaborate. I'm at a total loss

I think I get that items sold only sell for half price. Okay. But why is the part kept by the party divided based on half the value? as I see it, the NPC has some treasure worth X. Then the party divides some part of X among themselves, and the rest of X gets sold off - and only fetches half the remaing X value. Right?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Sorcica mate!

Please elaborate. I'm at a total loss

I think I get that items sold only sell for half price. Okay. But why is the part kept by the party divided based on half the value? as I see it, the NPC has some treasure worth X. Then the party divides some part of X among themselves, and the rest of X gets sold off - and only fetches half the remaing X value. Right?

I don't want to put words in Anubis mouth but I think he was over generalising here and you have pegged it exactly.

PCs probably won't start selling NPC equipment until at least mid-levels and I doubt even then it would be anything like half until at least high-levels.

This doesn't even factor in cohorts, so Anubis generalisation is somewhat misleading.

My character, Thrin, stockpiled magic items for years. Then when he became a god he dished a lot of it out to his more important worshippers. As a result the top people were really tough which furthered the reputation of the Order of Thrinian Knights, who now have the reputation as some of the toughest fighters in the known worlds.

 

[Coredump]

NOTE: The following quotes are taken from the thread "Dire Tiger" in the D&D Rules forum. Since it had taken a turn towards House rules, UK wisely asked to move the conversation here. If you would like more background, go ahead and check out that thread.

(I apologize for the large quotes, but I decided it would be best for continuity, since I am importing from another thread.)

Anubis

The thing is it ISN'T his problem. There are always people who just don't understand. Not all people operate at the same level. Some people would find the core rules hard to understand even. Some people might find Super Mario Bros. to be a hard game. These are not problems with the system, it's problems on the user's end. Most people who look at UK's system understand it pretty well. I see very few people having a tough time, and most of them went in with closed minds anyway, which assured a lack of understanding.

I'm not being mean, I'm being a realist. Some people just can't grasp advanced concepts. Just like I can't grasp calculus. It don't mean calculus is poorly designed, it means I am just not able to understand.

I think the fault here lies with the user, because everything in the PDF is pretty crystal clear.

But see, the point is that YOU think it isn't the problem, and YOU think it is clear. As soon as UK decides the same thing, it is over. It will never get clearer.
Your Calculus example is a great one. Check out a Calc book from 20-30 years ago. Man is it dense and hard to understand. But *some* people could understand it, in fact felt it was plain as day. If the various authors felt that was "Good enough, not everyone will understand anyway" then the books of today would be just as hard. But the ones today are much clearer, and do a much better job of explaining concepts. We could stop now, but the authors are still trying to find ways to reach more people, by making it even clearer. Of course they will never reach 100%, but as soon as they decide it is the "readers fault" it will never get better.
I bet that I could teach you calculus, I could make it understandable to you. (course, it would be easier if you had some algebra knowledge.)
UK is not saying that he is a bad person because someone didn't understand, but rather that their understanding is an opportunity for improving the message to reach even more people.


.

 

[Coredump]

UK,
The bulk of your post was in explaining away what I listed as potential problems. I had not claimed they were true, just using them to demonstrate that being more accurate did not necessarily equate to being better.
Unfortunately, Anubis chose not to respond to that aspect.

Now, for the exchange about the Pit Fiend. (NOTE: I am again quoting alot, from various posts, to facilitate understanding for those not reading the other thread.)

UK

.....what I have noticed from the 3.5 monsters so far is that their CRs are two-thirds the figure my system advocates.

Coredump

Okay, but does it matter? From what I can tell, WotC is saying that the Pit Fiend is CR 20, therefore EL 20.
Your method says CR 30, which still translates to an EL of 20. So what is the difference?.

UK

The difference is that under WotCs method a 20th-level character is CR 20/EL 20 and I disagree with the latter half of that appraisal.

They still advocate that a single 24th-level character is a difficult (50/50) challenge for a party of 4-5 20th-level characters. Or that a single 20th-level character is a difficult challenge for a party of 16th-level characters. This just simply isn't the case.
.

Okay, but I don't feel that answered my question. You seem to feel your CR system is better than the Core one. As an example of the difference, you showed how the Pit Fiend was shown to be rated very differently.
While the issue of PC = CR = EL may be a valid concern, that was not the crux of my question.
Why does it matter that WotC says Pit Fiend CR is 20, and you say Pit Fiend CR is 30; since they both mean the SAME EL.
At least in this one case it sounds like you are stating
"WotC has it wrong, they say it is CR 20 and a moderate challenge for a 20th level party, I say it is CR 30 and a moderate challenge for a 20th level party, so my way is better."

How does this demonstrate the superiority of your system, since it came out with the SAME end result?

.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Hi Sorcica mate!



I don't want to put words in Anubis mouth but I think he was over generalising here and you have pegged it exactly.

PCs probably won't start selling NPC equipment until at least mid-levels and I doubt even then it would be anything like half until at least high-levels.

This doesn't even factor in cohorts, so Anubis generalisation is somewhat misleading.

That answers my question (if indeed this is what Anubis meant.). Thanks.