Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread

[Coredump]

UK

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

Still not convinced thats the right rating.

Any comments?

Sure thing buddy.

I think you are venturing into an area best left for the DM. There are too many variables and shades of grey. Lets take a generic example of no flight defense; (same problem as the terrasque)
First, what level is the EL? If the EL is 10, it makes it almost worthless to combat it XP wise; but if it is EL 28, you still get decent XP; eventhough it is just as helpless.
This would seem to call for a "% drop" in EL; which, IMO is best left to the DM.
Now, what if there are 5 party members, and 2-3 can fly? How does that change the equation?
What if their flight ability is expendabe, ie via potion or charged item, will they use it? Maybe they *could* fly and make it inconsequential, but will they? To me, most anything that is to be determined 'after the fact' is related to XP more than EL, and should be handled by the DM.

I had other complications, but have conveniently forgotten them. In general, I think the situational modifiers may be best left as a suggested range; probably based on percentage of CR/EL
ie. If XXX is happening, than adjust the EL by 1-3 for core, and 3-6 for epic. Or some such. This would give the DM an idea of how much certain conditions should impact your system, while still giving them flexibility for implementing in various situations.

.

 

[Eldorian]

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?

You might wanna consider taking it between -4 and -6.

The plus side makes no sense btw. If your PCs are incapable of retaliation, then they cannot win the situation. I don't give exp for fleeing without having accomplished anything. How do you earn exp for winning a no-win situation?

However, if the foes are incapable of fighting back, it may still take resources to kill them, although most likely much less than if the foe could fight back. After all, the foe may still pose a threat, or prevent a goal, such as a landbound foe guarding a treasure.

For the tarrasque... he's a pretty hard mofo to kill, and just may take most your resources. At the least, he takes a wish, and that has an XP component, so you should definatly get some XP back (when we fought the tarrasque, the wizard that cast wish got his exp back for free, nice DM). If that tarrasque is, say.. eating half your army.. and the PCs are flying around in low orbit.. and the big T's normal EL is equal to the party's EL.. they should get some exp for killing him. -4 EL means one forth the exp award, and that seems about fair. Our party that killed the tarrasque.. while he was sleeping, although I put him to sleep with eyebite, took something around 10 spells to kill. All my remaining 9th levels. Level 23 party. And he was guarding an item we needed for an epic spell component, so we had to kill him (it was stuck to his underbelly).

Even had we encountered a sleeping tarrasque that was guarding the item we needed.. it would still be as if a trap. I mean, the challenge is setting off the trap without getting killed, ie, killing the tarrasque before he knows what hit him. Incidentally, it was a series of acid substituted empowered delayed blast fireballs that went off simotaniously that did most of the damage. My character =).

My main point is -8 means one 16th of normal exp, which seems a bit harsh, because even tho he can't fight back, he may still pose a threat to some goal of the PCs.

Eldorian Antar

 

[Eldorian]

UK

Sure thing buddy.

I think you are venturing into an area best left for the DM. There are too many variables and shades of grey. Lets take a generic example of no flight defense; (same problem as the terrasque)
First, what level is the EL? If the EL is 10, it makes it almost worthless to combat it XP wise; but if it is EL 28, you still get decent XP; eventhough it is just as helpless.
This would seem to call for a "% drop" in EL; which, IMO is best left to the DM.
Now, what if there are 5 party members, and 2-3 can fly? How does that change the equation?
What if their flight ability is expendabe, ie via potion or charged item, will they use it? Maybe they *could* fly and make it inconsequential, but will they? To me, most anything that is to be determined 'after the fact' is related to XP more than EL, and should be handled by the DM.

I had other complications, but have conveniently forgotten them. In general, I think the situational modifiers may be best left as a suggested range; probably based on percentage of CR/EL
ie. If XXX is happening, than adjust the EL by 1-3 for core, and 3-6 for epic. Or some such. This would give the DM an idea of how much certain conditions should impact your system, while still giving them flexibility for implementing in various situations.

.

Ya missed something bud. ELs are relative. See table 1-5 for exp based on relative EL. -8 EL means one 16th the XP award, no matter what.

As for the 3/5 the party flying or whatever, consider each side as a whole. Afterall, the non flying types do represent resources. For example, with the shear number of conditions for which my Sorcerer's contingency teleport would go off, not much represented a serious threat, baring dimensional anchors or antimagic. Even if he was killed before it went off, being dead was one of the triggers, and he had a true rez waiting on the other end. So for this character, not much could actually threaten him. But his allies were another story.

Eldorian Antar

 

[Coredump]

Ya missed something bud. ELs are relative. See table 1-5 for exp based on relative EL. -8 EL means one 16th the XP award, no matter what.

Yes and no. I knew they were relative, but didn't catch all the implications. Thanks to you, I now realize that the -8 will have a similar effect regardless of level.
My other statements were similar to yours, in the sense that not being able to retaliate, does not necessarily mean it is a cakewalk.

I don't think 1/16 is necessarily a bad number, just not for all situations.


OT: I don't think I would allow multiple unrelated triggers for one contingency spell. And I don't think I would let death be a trigger at all. Not that it is clearly allowable or not, just my interpretation.

.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Coredump mate!

Anubis
Well, I think I have been "REALLY" paying attention, and I am pretty sure that a Balor is considered a monster, and that it isn't a classed character.
Yet in section 14.0 Wealth, it is given as an example of getting CR +1.8 due do its 'wealth' of a vorpal greatsword.
Now, I have not been "REALLY" paying attention to the errata, so that may have been addressed.

As far as I am concerned there is a difference between intrinsic equipment (such as the Deva's mace or Balor's sword) and any potential items the DM may or may not give out due to the treasure tables.

So I am confused as to what you are saying here.

Anyone,
About fractional CR: I am all for continuity and for being a math geek. But how imperative is it that this section is taken with such exacting precision? It seems that luck/party make-up/etc. make for much larger variables at very low levels; thereby lowering the need for precision. (Though accuracy is still helpful)

Plus, the method for 'adding' CR's seems to break down the more creatures you have. So worrying about what EL a group of 64 Kobolds will be doesn't seem to contain much merit.

I finished both fractional CR and racial modifiers last night. I'll go over them and test them today then post them later either today or tomorrow.

PS. UK, sorry about the lack of smiley, but I knew you would get it, and the childish part of me was wondering if Anubis would....apparently not.

Lets just let sleeping dogs lie then.

 

[Upper_Krust]

UK

Hiya mate!

Sure thing buddy.

I think you are venturing into an area best left for the DM.

Possibly, like I said that was the only such common denominator that was giving me pause.

There are too many variables and shades of grey. Lets take a generic example of no flight defense; (same problem as the terrasque)
First, what level is the EL? If the EL is 10, it makes it almost worthless to combat it XP wise; but if it is EL 28, you still get decent XP; eventhough it is just as helpless.
This would seem to call for a "% drop" in EL; which, IMO is best left to the DM.
Now, what if there are 5 party members, and 2-3 can fly? How does that change the equation?
What if their flight ability is expendabe, ie via potion or charged item, will they use it? Maybe they *could* fly and make it inconsequential, but will they? To me, most anything that is to be determined 'after the fact' is related to XP more than EL, and should be handled by the DM.

I had other complications, but have conveniently forgotten them. In general, I think the situational modifiers may be best left as a suggested range; probably based on percentage of CR/EL
ie. If XXX is happening, than adjust the EL by 1-3 for core, and 3-6 for epic. Or some such. This would give the DM an idea of how much certain conditions should impact your system, while still giving them flexibility for implementing in various situations.

Well (as Eldorian mentioned) ELs are relative.

I may leave the EL rating as DMs Choice. But it would be nice to provide some suggestions and guidelines for this one.

 

[Upper_Krust]

You might wanna consider taking it between -4 and -6.

Possibly, I had +4/-4 for a while as my initial supposition.

The plus side makes no sense btw. If your PCs are incapable of retaliation, then they cannot win the situation. I don't give exp for fleeing without having accomplished anything. How do you earn exp for winning a no-win situation?

What if there are two teams of PCs? What if the DM is factoring EXP for prominent NPCs etc.

However, if the foes are incapable of fighting back, it may still take resources to kill them, although most likely much less than if the foe could fight back. After all, the foe may still pose a threat, or prevent a goal, such as a landbound foe guarding a treasure.

Indeed.

For the tarrasque... he's a pretty hard mofo to kill, and just may take most your resources. At the least, he takes a wish, and that has an XP component, so you should definatly get some XP back (when we fought the tarrasque, the wizard that cast wish got his exp back for free, nice DM). If that tarrasque is, say.. eating half your army.. and the PCs are flying around in low orbit.. and the big T's normal EL is equal to the party's EL.. they should get some exp for killing him. -4 EL means one forth the exp award, and that seems about fair. Our party that killed the tarrasque.. while he was sleeping, although I put him to sleep with eyebite, took something around 10 spells to kill. All my remaining 9th levels. Level 23 party. And he was guarding an item we needed for an epic spell component, so we had to kill him (it was stuck to his underbelly).

You are convincing me that -4/+4 (my original supposition) is more accurate.

Even had we encountered a sleeping tarrasque that was guarding the item we needed.. it would still be as if a trap. I mean, the challenge is setting off the trap without getting killed, ie, killing the tarrasque before he knows what hit him. Incidentally, it was a series of acid substituted empowered delayed blast fireballs that went off simotaniously that did most of the damage. My character =).

My main point is -8 means one 16th of normal exp, which seems a bit harsh, because even tho he can't fight back, he may still pose a threat to some goal of the PCs.

Agreed.

 

[Coredump]

Howdy UK,

As far as I am concerned there is a difference between intrinsic equipment (such as the Deva's mace or Balor's sword) and any potential items the DM may or may not give out due to the treasure tables.

So I am confused as to what you are saying here.
.

Hmmmm...... Maybe I don't understand what you mean by 'wealth' then. To me it is an indication of their available equipment, since a 6th lvl fighter with a +5 sword, is more of a threat than with a +1 sword. I did not think it was meant to indicate how much jewelry and gems were laying around.

I did/do not see much of a difference if a 20th lvl character has a +5 vorpal sword, or if a Balor has it. Their 'wealth' makes them more of a challenge.

I never really considered the Treasure Tables at all, as far as "You find 10,000 PP and 15,000 GP" meaning much in regards to the CR/EL. (Unless, of course, the Table indicates magic that the creature could be using....)

My statement was because it was mentioned that wealth was not used for a Kobold; but a Kobold with a sword and leather armour, is more of a threat than without.

I may leave the EL rating as DMs Choice. But it would be nice to provide some suggestions and guidelines for this one.

Well, I will withhold final opinion until I see what you have, but my initial response is 'Absolutely'. I think guidelines of a range of adjustments would be well warrented. Along with suggestions as how to apply the range. ie. not just say '-4 to -6 EL' but rather XX may lead to a -4 adjustment, YY may lead to -5, and ZZ should indicate a -6.
I think it is totally feasible to have an encounter warrent a -8 EL, and they DM should feel the flexibility to do so.

(Terrasque)
You are convincing me that -4/+4 (my original supposition) is more accurate.

But also consider a 'moderate' encounter from a ledge, where it is literally shooting fish in a barrel. yes, it may cost them some arrows, but it may not be worth 1/4 the XP.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Anubis.

I should point out now that monsters do not get NPC wealth, so that is not counted. You REALLY need to actually start paying attention to the system. Wealth is given to classed characters above 1st level.

As I originally stated (2 or 3 pages ago now), I factored in wealth "to be fair". Without wealth, the case for my goblin and kobold CR values is made even stronger still. My proof has been in the pudding since the beginning. I can't help it if you don't like pudding.

 

[Coredump]

Oh, I have finished (a while ago) going over the appendix; but was waiting for the resolution of the fractional/situational discussions. I didn't want to have too many things going at once.

.