Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread

[Anubis]

Well, here is my famous compromise that UK was talking about before. I think this can solve all our problems. I e-mailed this to him a week or two ago and I think is finally covers the final issue (which is kobolds and NOT goblins).



Okay here is my updated base CR to fractional CR proposal. This would solve the kobold problem altogether. For these numbers, any positive numbers must always be rounded down, while negative numbers are always rounded to the nearest as per normal math. (The reason for this is because once you get to negative numbers and fractions, the differences become so minute that even the slightest change can have a big effect since these things are primarily for Level 1 parties to fight against.)

CR 0.5 = CR 1/2
CR 0 = CR 1/3
CR -0.5 = CR 1/4
CR -1 = CR 1/6
CR -1.5 = CR 1/8
CR -2 = CR 1/10
CR -3 = CR 1/16
CR -4 = CR 1/24
CR -5 = CR 1/32
CR -6 = CR 1/48
CR -7 = CR 1/64

As per my original proposal, all fractional CRs equate to the same fractional EL. As such CR 1/2 = EL 1/2, CR 1/3 = EL 1/3, CR 1/4 = EL 1/4, etc. etc. etc.

Basically, beyond finding the fractional CR, there are no additional calculations whatsoever. Fractions are counted as per the WotC system with fractions adding up until at least EL 1. Two opponents at EL 1/2 are EL 1, three opponents at EL 1/3 are EL 1, four opponents at EL 1/4 are EL 1, etc.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Directly. In the most simple and straightforward way imaginable.

When you translate a CR 0.3 creature into a fractional CR, you get a CR 3/10 creature. Now because you always round CR down, rounding down fractional Challenge Ratings is no different. The two closest fractional CR increments are 1/2 and 1/4. A CR 3/10 creatures falls directly between those two ranges, and thus rounds down to CR 1/4.

Adjusting CR for opponent numbers works on the same premise, except that each increment of fractional Challenge Rating (2/3, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc.) counts as +1. Which is why a four CR 1/4 creatures add up to EL 2.

Easier than eating pie.

Actually you seem to be ignoring the point I just made (and the crux of the whole idea).

What about negative CR scores - something which will occur using my system!?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello Anubis mate!

Hmmm . . . I don't think I really like your little premise here. I think the best way is to compare the wealth directly by comparing the PC level to the NPC level PER LEVEL. Compare Level 20 only to Level 20, etc. I certainly understand what you're saying now, though.

Glad I got through.

IF you do it this way, though, I'd like something more exact. So go with your new proposed formula.

(3/4Level ^3)*100

Then make it 0.15/NPC Level for wealth. That way you are EXACT. You're the one with a problem with more wealth for NPCs, not me. I don't mind having NPCs with more wealth, it makes things more interesting. Inflated treasure, but the DM could handle that.

Actually Eldorian had a good idea there.

NPC Level^3 x 25 GP

Which gives us the same results as before but is probably slightly easier to work out.

Essentially what we are trying to outline is that NPC wealth is about one quarter PC wealth. However, the DMG doesn't seem to use such an idea, but looking at that book why the hell should a 1st-level NPC have the same wealth as a 2nd-level PC ~ it doesn't make any bloody sense.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Well, here is my famous compromise that UK was talking about before. I think this can solve all our problems. I e-mailed this to him a week or two ago and I think is finally covers the final issue (which is kobolds and NOT goblins).

Okay here is my updated base CR to fractional CR proposal. This would solve the kobold problem altogether. For these numbers, any positive numbers must always be rounded down, while negative numbers are always rounded to the nearest as per normal math. (The reason for this is because once you get to negative numbers and fractions, the differences become so minute that even the slightest change can have a big effect since these things are primarily for Level 1 parties to fight against.)

CR 0.5 = CR 1/2
CR 0 = CR 1/3
CR -0.5 = CR 1/4
CR -1 = CR 1/6
CR -1.5 = CR 1/8
CR -2 = CR 1/10
CR -3 = CR 1/16
CR -4 = CR 1/24
CR -5 = CR 1/32
CR -6 = CR 1/48
CR -7 = CR 1/64

As per my original proposal, all fractional CRs equate to the same fractional EL. As such CR 1/2 = EL 1/2, CR 1/3 = EL 1/3, CR 1/4 = EL 1/4, etc. etc. etc.

Basically, beyond finding the fractional CR, there are no additional calculations whatsoever. Fractions are counted as per the WotC system with fractions adding up until at least EL 1. Two opponents at EL 1/2 are EL 1, three opponents at EL 1/3 are EL 1, four opponents at EL 1/4 are EL 1, etc.

You forgot CR 2/3 = EL 0.

 

[Anubis]

I didn't forget anything. I don't think there should be a CR 2/3 at all nor an EL 0. Has my proposal gone over your head altogether? The first column is exact CR, the second is the translated fraction. That translated CR IS the EL with no changes, giving fractional ELs.

To clarify, for instance, if a creature came out to be CR 0.75, that would be "0.5" and as such would translate to CR 1/2. As such, it would also be EL 1/2. Find XP for fractions as in the book. Two such creatures would be an EL 1 encounter. Three would be EL 2, four would be EL 3, etc.

See what I'm saying now? I'm trying to make this simpler for you by trying to make some aspects as close to the original rules as possible procedure-wise, yet you keep insisting on making things more complicated by introducing as many brand-new factors as you can no matter how pedantic.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

I didn't forget anything. I don't think there should be a CR 2/3 at all nor an EL 0.

Incongrous given that we know that an EL of one less that EL 1...ie. EL 0, represents 2/3rds of an EL 1.

Has my proposal gone over your head altogether? The first column is exact CR, the second is the translated fraction. That translated CR IS the EL with no changes, giving fractional ELs.

To clarify, for instance, if a creature came out to be CR 0.75, that would be "0.5" and as such would translate to CR 1/2. As such, it would also be EL 1/2. Find XP for fractions as in the book. Two such creatures would be an EL 1 encounter. Three would be EL 2, four would be EL 3, etc.

See what I'm saying now? I'm trying to make this simpler for you by trying to make some aspects as close to the original rules as possible procedure-wise, yet you keep insisting on making things more complicated by introducing as many brand-new factors as you can no matter how pedantic.

You can't ignore CR 2/3, it must be incorporated.

 

[Anubis]

Hiya mate!



Incongrous given that we know that an EL of one less that EL 1...ie. EL 0, represents 2/3rds of an EL 1.



You can't ignore CR 2/3, it must be incorporated.

I'm saying THERE IS NO EL 0.

That's the part you don't seem to get.

EL goes to fractions, not negatives. CR goes to negatives that translate into fractions.

There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to having a CR 2/3, and I guarantee that introducing such a silly concept would turn people off of your system. They want to be able to EASILY go from core to UK without much translation needs. As such, we should only keep denominations that are already known. The numbers are still accuratem after all, so there is no need to introduce this negative EL concept. Better to go with the fractions.

Now try to keep up here:

If CR rounds down to 0.5, that translates to CR 1/2 which in turn translates to EL 1/2. CR rounding down to 0 gives us CR 1/3, which translates to EL 1/3. Rounding to -0.5 gives us CR 1/4, which is EL 1/4, and so on and so forth as outlined above. EL NEVER reaches 0, it just keeps dividing into more fractions.

You need to understand that the negative EL concept will confuse far more people than it will help, and in addition, it gets inaccurate when you have medium-sized groups.

My fractional system solves that problem and gives the same exact results otherwise.

I'm trying to help you out by making things simpler without costing any accuracy. You seem hell bent on making things as complex and undesirable as possible.

One thing is for certain, that no matter the outcome, I'm gonna personally be using the rules that have playtested correctly, which is using fractional ELs as I have outlined. If you wanna goof up the system, that's your perogative, but I won't be one of the people using it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Anubis mate!

I'm saying THERE IS NO EL 0.

Indeed you are, and its akin to saying 2+2=5.

That's the part you don't seem to get.

I get it all right, I'm just not swallowing it.

EL goes to fractions, not negatives. CR goes to negatives that translate into fractions.

I have no problem with fractional EL, I agree EL going to negatives is somewhat incongrous.

The system is modular enough to work either way.

But I am not yet convinced its totally for the best.

There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to having a CR 2/3,

Actually there is a completely justified reason.

Increasing an EL by 1 is akin to multiplying the number of opponents by 1.5. Therefore decreasing the EL by 1 is akin to dividing the number of opponents by 2/3.

and I guarantee that introducing such a silly concept would turn people off of your system.

Not once they understood it.

They want to be able to EASILY go from core to UK without much translation needs. As such, we should only keep denominations that are already known.

Nonsensical.

Theres no point making the transition easy if the end result is not going to help people.

The numbers are still accuratem after all, so there is no need to introduce this negative EL concept. Better to go with the fractions.

I haven't decided which is for the best yet.

Now try to keep up here:

Dude I have already lapped you!

If CR rounds down to 0.5, that translates to CR 1/2 which in turn translates to EL 1/2. CR rounding down to 0 gives us CR 1/3, which translates to EL 1/3. Rounding to -0.5 gives us CR 1/4, which is EL 1/4, and so on and so forth as outlined above. EL NEVER reaches 0, it just keeps dividing into more fractions.

You forgot CR 2/3.

You need to understand that the negative EL concept will confuse far more people than it will help,

On the other hand it is easier to work out though.

and in addition, it gets inaccurate when you have medium-sized groups. My fractional system solves that problem and gives the same exact results otherwise.

What problem?

I'm trying to help you out by making things simpler without costing any accuracy.

I appreciate the help mate.

You seem hell bent on making things as complex and undesirable as possible.

Well of course, thats my top priority.

One thing is for certain, that no matter the outcome, I'm gonna personally be using the rules that have playtested correctly, which is using fractional ELs as I have outlined. If you wanna goof up the system, that's your perogative, but I won't be one of the people using it.

 

[Coredump]

Anubis, you have obviously made it simple to understand, and UK just doesn't 'get it'. It is not your fault, some people will never understand, he probrably never got Calculus either. I think you are being unduly harsh on yourself by trying to explain it further; if he doesn't get it, it is his own problem, and not yours. You have done all that is reasonable, he should just have to suffer.


OTOH, you could just keep getting pissier and pissier until your condescending arrogance becomes so overwhelming that he just *has* to understand.

.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Coredump mate!

Anubis, you have obviously made it simple to understand, and UK just doesn't 'get it'. It is not your fault, some people will never understand, he probrably never got Calculus either. I think you are being unduly harsh on yourself by trying to explain it further; if he doesn't get it, it is his own problem, and not yours. You have done all that is reasonable, he should just have to suffer.

OTOH, you could just keep getting pissier and pissier until your condescending arrogance becomes so overwhelming that he just *has* to understand.

A smilie would have went a long way there Coredump mate.

I abstained from pointing out the irony of the situation, given Anubis outburst in the Dire Tigers thread. I had sort of hoped everyone else would as well.

Incidently I have finished the Situational Modifiers; although one is giving me pause:

"One side incapable of effective retaliation." = EL +8/-8

Still not convinced thats the right rating.

Any comments?