• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello again mate! :)

Anubis said:
Okay, after many hours of study, I not only pinpointed the problems with UK's proposal, I also found a steady formula to determine fractional CRs!

Here it goes . . . We know CR 1 = EL 1. Well, I propose that we set half that (CR 0.5) to equal the EL 2/3. Starting from that point, I made a variation of the original formula as the basis for mine. After 1, the formula that UK uses goes CR*2 = EL+4. This obviously don't work below 1, however, because then you could never take into account negative CRs. Instead, you have to reverse the formula! It goes like so, *for CRs below 1*:

CR-2 = EL/4

Bam! With that, you get the following:

CR - EL
===================
-3 = 1/16
-2.5 = 1/12
-2 = 1/8
-1.5 = 1/6
-1 = 1/4
-0.5 = 1/3
0 = 1/2
0.5 = 2/3
1 = 1

UK's proposal has no mathematical basis, whereas my proposal is based off of the very formula that works his entire system! I think this is certain proof that I have the right idea here.

Now as for the following proposal:

CR - EL
===================
1 = 1
1.25 = 2
1.50 = 3
1.75 = 4
2 = 5
2.50 = 6
3 = 7
3.50 = 8
4 = 9

The base problem with this is in pathetic creatures with unbalanced powers. In this, the tiny viper works out to be EL 3, ridiculous by any DM's imagination considering the whopping 1 hp. Also, gnolls work out to be EL 2, which although I find that to be slightly stupid, it's not quite as unbalanced as the timy viper. On that note, there are only three solutions:

1) Reduce the CR value of poison.
2) Forget about diving up ELs 1-4.
3) Have a poison parameter that limits the poison power of smaller creatures, which kills the realism of the viper.

Take your pick, 'cause it currently don't work at all. Anyway, that's my report. Those using the system are urged to use THIS formula and not UK's, as UK's will cause problems with the fractional monsters.

In summary...

My analysis of fractional CR may indeed be misleading (I'm still looking into it, although the divisions from 0+ appear to work); I'll know in future about posting stuff before I have double checked it.

We may indeed have to run with halving instead of quartering below 1. Which would make the Small Zombie CR 1/5 and the Giant Fire Beetle CR 1/4. It would also make the Medium Zombie 1/3.

Poison does appear to be rated fairly high, maybe its effects should be halved (I'll check)? Though I currently rate the Tiny Viper at CR 1.375 (1.25) = EL 2; not EL 3.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Upper_Krust said:

Racial Mods

Dwarf Racial Mods: CR +0.4
Elf Racial Mods: CR +0.3
Human Racial Mods: CR +0.3
Half Orc Racial Mods: CR +/-0.0
Gnome Racial Mods: CR -0.2
Halfling Racial Mods: CR -0.2

Goblin Racial Mods: CR +0.1 (without speed increase*)
Hobgoblin Racial Mods: CR +0.3
Kobold Racial Mods: CR -0.2 (without speed increase*)
Orc Racial Mods: CR +0.1

I should point out that unless you've changed the factors, hobgoblin racials mods equal 0.2 (Darkvision) and orc racial mods equal 0 (0.2 Darkvision -0.2 Light Sensitivity).

While I'm at it, I would highly suggest going ahead and not counting any racial mods that together add up to between -0.5 and 0.5. The reasoning is simple: if you count these factors AND keep the fractions above CR 1, humans, elves, and dwarves come out to EL 2 as Level 1 characters, while half-orcs comes out normal and both gnomes and halflings comes out to be EL 2/3 characters. I would suggest leaving all the base creatures as ECL 0 races for simplicity's sake.

As for the midless trait, go ahead and keep it. I thought partial action only creatures were CR -1 not CR -0.25, which is why I rated zombies so low. At CR -0.25, it works. I also didn't count their feats, but now I noticed that feats on any mindless creatures are bonus feats. I have them listed as the following:

Tiny Skeleton: CR -0.325, CR~EL 1/3
Small Skeleton: CR 0.150, CR~EL 1/2
Medium-Size Skeleton: CR 0.900, CR~EL 2/3
Tiny Zombie: CR -2.050, CR~EL 1/8
Small Zombie: CR -1.350, CR~EL 1/6
Medium-Size Zombie: CR -0.350, CR~EL 1/3

As to wealth, well, as I pointed out above, the non-magical items do not scale price with power, as I showed. The reason low PC/NPC wealth is counted andthe "basic equipment" of those races is not counted is because these creatures barely have what constitutes Level 1 NPC wealth.
 
Last edited:

After careful study, it appears that halving the value of poison pretty much fixes everything save for the only slightly off gnoll EL. The gnoll still works out to be EL 2 unfortunately, but that's not really a big deal because it can be argued that a gnoll IS EL 2 and not EL 1. Whatever. Here is the complete list of CRs and ELs I have come up with so far:

Code:
[COLOR=white]
Monster                                                Rating       CR       EL

Animated Object, Living Statue                          2.600        2.50     6
Badger                                                  1.150        1        1
Bugbear                                                 2.150        2        5
Demon, Dretch                                           4.026        4        9
Devil, Lemure                                           2.650        2.50     6
Dire Bat                                                4.800        4        9
Dire Rat                                                1.100        1        1
Dire Tiger                                             12.200       12       15
Gargoyle                                                5.700        5       10
Gelatinous Cube                                         9.200        9       13
Ghast                                                   4.650        4        9
Ghoul                                                   3.250        3        7
Giant Bee                                               0.850        0 2/3    0 2/3
Giant Beetle, Fire                                     -0.900        0 1/4    0 1/4
Gnoll                                                   1.400        1.25     2
Goblin                                          0.200 / 0.600        0 2/3    0 2/3
Hell Hound                                              4.850        4        9
Hobgoblin                                       0.200 / 0.600        0 2/3    0 2/3
Kobold                                                  0.075        0 1/2    0 1/2
Krenshar                                                2.100        2        5
Monstrous Centipede, Tiny                              -1.575        0 1/6    0 1/6
Monstrous Centipede, Small                             -0.850        0 1/4    0 1/4
Monstrous Scorpion, Tiny                               -0.700        0 1/3    0 1/3
Monstrous Scorpion, Small                               0.200        0 1/2    0 1/2
Monstrous Scorpion, Colossal                           40.050       40       22
Monstrous Spider, Tiny                                 -0.900        0 1/4    0 1/4
Monstrous Spider, Small                                -0.300        0 1/3    0 1/3
Mummy                                                   6.900        6       11
Ogre                                                    4.200        4        9
Orc                                             0.000 / 0.600        0 2/3    0 2/3
Skeleton, Tiny                                         -0.325        0 1/3    0 1/3
Skeleton, Small                                         0.150        0 1/2    0 1/2
Skeleton, Medium-Size                                   0.900        0 2/3    0 2/3
Snake, Tiny Viper                                       0.975        0 2/3    0 2/3
Stirge                                                  1.100        1        1
Troglodyte                                              2.300        2        5
Wight                                                   6.100        6       11
Wraith                                                  8.400        8       13
Zombie, Tiny                                           -2.050        0 1/8    0 1/8
Zombie, Small                                          -1.350        0 1/6    0 1/6
Zombie, Medium-Size                                    -0.350        0 1/3    0 1/3
[/COLOR]

For the creatures with two Ratings, the first number is the creature's racial modifier alone while the second is the actual rating of one such creature per the book (NOT counting racial abilities but only NPC class levels in these cases). These creatures are ECL 0 creatures that are classed in the MM.

Also, I understand and realize that UK could very well get different ratings for many of these creatures due to the fact that not all pertinent factors are in the PDF (and thus must be rated ad hoc). I came to these numbers using my judgment on things that were not rated in the PDF for various things. For instance, I do not count the stirges attach ability at all (the reasoning is simple: the stirge loses all defenses while attached, and unlike other attach abilities that use improved grab and grappling, this ability proves to be pretty worthless as it disables the stirge), and I also count the gelatinous cube's transparency to be worth 0.2 and the engulf ability to be worth 0.5 . . . Basically, many of these are judgment calls, and UK and I will likely have differing opinions on some things. These numbers, however, I can guarantee to be 99% accurate by the PDF, so it's safe to use them in your games if you use this system.

Besides, UK shouldn't have to do ALL the work. I'll be keying more creatures as I go along. In fact, I'd be more than happy to release all my results on the boards as I get them.

Anyway, enjoy!
 
Last edited:

Wow. So much new information to deal with.

First of all, I believe the equation that Anubis pulled out of his hat (CR-2 = EL/4) is worth embracing. That's right. It's appears to be a good, clean solution. I can't stand arbitrary solutions any more than the next poster on this board. This new equation makes sense.

Second of all...

Upper_Krust.

I think this new "count everything" idea (regarding racial abilities) needs to be examined more closely. I like it, but I'm not sure about it. Still reading (I'm in a rush today). The point is... I'd like to see it work. How else can we cook the books so that all the core races come out to ECL 0.

I agree that poisons are rated too harshly. My own playtesting bared that one out too.

Lastly (for the moment), I think goblins and kobolds moving at 30 feet is completely acceptable. Both races are a skitterish lot, well accustomed to making cowardly retreats.

:D
 

HEADLINE: HELL FREEZES OVER

Yikes, Sonofapreacherman, UK, and I all accept the new formula! Wow! Well then, since I'm on a roll, I might as well reveal my next proposal!

This next one has to do with wealth and trasure. As I'm sure most have already figured out, the old treasure tables do not work when coupled with the new EL system and the new PC wealth formula. First, UK's formula gives far more wealth at low levels and far less wealth at high levels. Second, the current treasure tables work off of EL and are designed to work with the DMG's wealth tables, and this new system is a significant change. Third, wealth increases even more when one EL encompasses many levels, making a linear system seem unworkable. In light of all these facts, one would think that wealth and treasure get terribly broken under the new system. This is mostly true unless you work out properly. After three seperate attempts, I believe I have finally found the solution.

I'll skip all the mistakes I made and get right to the results here. In order to figure out how much treasures should be worth, you must find out how many levels it takes to reach the next EL up and then calculate the wealth increase. Divide that by 13 1/3 (the number of encounters it should take to reach the next level) and then by the number of levels in that EL (which doesn't come into play until middle levels) and then you have the ideal value of a treasure of that level. From there, simply give treasure based on the EL.

Before I go on, I will post a table of the wealth of Levels 1-40, because that is the scope of my initial findings and the most likely used levels. These numbers are all derived from the new PC wealth formula.

Code:
[COLOR=white]
PC Wealth

Level  1             0
Level  2           800
Level  3         2,700
Level  4         6,400
Level  5        12,500
Level  6        21,600
Level  7        34,300
Level  8        51,200
Level  9        72,900
Level 10       100,000
Level 11       133,100
Level 12       172,800
Level 13       219,700
Level 14       274,400
Level 15       337,500
Level 16       409,600
Level 17       491,300
Level 18       583,200
Level 19       685,900
Level 20       800,000
Level 21       926,100
Level 22     1,064,800
Level 23     1,216,700
Level 24     1,382,400
Level 25     1,562,500
Level 26     1,757,600
Level 27     1,968,300
Level 28     2,195,200
Level 29     2,438,900
Level 30     2,700,000
Level 31     2,979,100
Level 32     3,276,800
Level 33     3,593,700
Level 34     3,930,400
Level 35     4,287,500
Level 36     4,665,600
Level 37     5,065,300
Level 38     5,487,200
Level 39     5,931,900
Level 40     6,400,000
[/COLOR]

Now I will give my proposal exactly as I gave it to UK. Here is the proposal as I originally wrote it in my e-mail to UK:



Anyway, I've been thinking very hard about this, and I think I have come up with a solution. The ONLY possible bad thing about the solution is that wealth gained during gaming would not exactly match wealth from the tables at certain points. Then again, I don't know a single campaign where those tables are followed to the number, so the differences are within acceptable limits. All things considered, it all balances out in the end because although you get more treasure at the low end of a particular EL, you get less treasure at the high end of the same EL. All in all it's the ONLY solution that works at ALL levels.

Indeed, you must give out treasure PER EL (as you guessed at one point), and have a specific level of treasure for each EL. This of course would normally give us the problem of giving more treasure to higher level characters within the same EL, right? WRONG. By taking the average needed for every level within a given EL, you get an average amount of treasure per encounter within that EL.

In order to do this, though, you must change things at ALL levels, not just epic levels. I present to you the following chart:

Code:
[COLOR=white]
EL     Treasure Value     Treasure Level

1-4               240                  1
5-6               570                  2
7-8             1,110                  4
9               1,830                  6
10              2,730                  7
11              3,810                  8
12              5,070                  9
13              7,320                 11
14             10,920                 12
15             15,240                 14
16             20,280                 15
17             29,280                 16
18             43,680                 18
19             60,960                 19
20             81,120                 20
21            117,120
[/COLOR]

For every value that is within the parameters of the DMG, I went ahead and assigned a Treasure Level from the DMG. The first column is the EL of the encounter. The second column is what the value of a treasure from such an encounter should be in order to keep PCs with wealth parameters. The third column gives us the Treasure Level from the DMG to use that matches those values, as per p.170 of the DMG. Five Treasure Levels will of course never be used, but that's okay. Each Treasure Level indicated gives an average of the indicated amount of treasure and thus keeps PCs within wealth guidelines. Over Treasure Level 20, it is of course up to the DM to assign treasure that is worth a total of about the given value, as per the suggestions in the ELH about not randomly generating epic treasure.

The numbers in the second column were obtained through a method similar to the one I gave you before for obtaining treasure values per level. The formula seems more complex, but it actually isn't and this is unfortunately the only way to get accurate treasure numbers. It's no more complicated than your entire CR system. The formula is as follows:

{ [ (calculated wealth for first level of next EL) - (calculated wealth for bottom level of current EL) ] *4 } / 13 1/3 / (number of levels in current EL)

That looks even more intimidating than before, of course, and likely needs explanation. What it means is subtract the wealth of the bottom level of the current EL from the wealth of the bottom level of the next EL up (because that's how much wealth should be accumulated through that particular EL), multiply the result by 4, and then divide it by 13 1/3. Then finish it up by dividing the result by the number of levels within the current EL. Remember that by the system, 13 1/3 encounters is the technical norm, and that is where I got the number of course. Now it is time for an example to explain. The following is how you get the value of an EL 21 treasure:

EL 21 = Levels 32-39
EL 22 = Levels 40-47

PC Level 40 (bottom level of EL 22) Wealth: 6,400,000
PC Level 32 (bottom level of EL 21) Wealth: 3,276,800

6,400,000 - 3,276,800 = 3,123,200
3,123,200 * 4 = 12,492,800
12,492,800 / 13 1/3 = 936,960

936,960 / 8 (number of levels within EL 21) = 117,120

As I said, PERFECT. This finally fixes the problems with wealth and treasure, assuming you use the wealth formula that has been settled upon for PCs. I know this is a bit complex, but then again, it's 255% necessary. You changed the way to CR/EL system works, which breaks the current treasure system by default because it was run based around the old CR/EL system. As such, there were bound to be complications when wealth was changed, and as such, treasure needed to be changed right along with it.

Anyway, problem solved.

Questions? Comments?
 
Last edited:

Anubis said:
I should point out that unless you've changed the factors, hobgoblin racials mods equal 0.2 (Darkvision)

...and +0.08 for skills.

Anubis said:
and orc racial mods equal 0 (0.2 Darkvision -0.2 Light Sensitivity).

I thought I had light sensitivity at -0.1...?

Okay, and I just checked, I have it at -0.2; shows what I know. :o

Anubis said:
While I'm at it, I would highly suggest going ahead and not counting any racial mods that together add up to between -0.5 and 0.5. The reasoning is simple: if you count these factors AND keep the fractions above CR 1, humans, elves, and dwarves come out to EL 2 as Level 1 characters,

Indeed.

Anubis said:
while half-orcs comes out normal and both gnomes and halflings comes out to be EL 2/3 characters.

Well, the facts don't lie. ;)

Anubis said:
I would suggest leaving all the base creatures as ECL 0 races for simplicity's sake.

I will do the reverse. Factor all mods but 'suggest' DMs ignore racial mods for the sake of brevity.

Anubis said:
As for the midless trait, go ahead and keep it.

Well it works a peach now we changed the fractional CR rating.

Anubis said:
I thought partial action only creatures were CR -1 not CR -0.25, which is why I rated zombies so low. At CR -0.25, it works.

Well, thinking about it, its like losing half an attack. Since gaining an attack is +0.5 it occured to me that -0.25 suited partial actions better.

Anubis said:
I also didn't count their feats, but now I noticed that feats on any mindless creatures are bonus feats. I have them listed as the following:

Tiny Skeleton: CR -0.325, CR~EL 1/3
Small Skeleton: CR 0.150, CR~EL 1/2
Medium-Size Skeleton: CR 0.900, CR~EL 2/3
Tiny Zombie: CR -2.050, CR~EL 1/8
Small Zombie: CR -1.350, CR~EL 1/6
Medium-Size Zombie: CR -0.350, CR~EL 1/3

Absolutely.

Anubis said:
As to wealth, well, as I pointed out above, the non-magical items do not scale price with power, as I showed. The reason low PC/NPC wealth is counted andthe "basic equipment" of those races is not counted is because these creatures barely have what constitutes Level 1 NPC wealth.

Which is why if they have less than 25 GP (1st-level NPC wealth) they don't get any CR bonus.
 

Hiya mate! :)

Anubis said:
After careful study, it appears that halving the value of poison pretty much fixes everything save for the only slightly off gnoll EL. The gnoll still works out to be EL 2 unfortunately, but that's not really a big deal because it can be argued that a gnoll IS EL 2 and not EL 1. Whatever.

I think we can live with it...that said I don't see any problem.

Anubis said:
Here is the complete list of CRs and ELs I have come up with so far:

For the creatures with two Ratings, the first number is the creature's racial modifier alone while the second is the actual rating of one such creature per the book (NOT counting racial abilities but only NPC class levels in these cases).

Count everything from now on. ;)

Anubis said:
These creatures are ECL 0 creatures that are classed in the MM.

They are still ECL 0. Technically you could have anything up to +0.9 still represent ECL 0 if we adhere to the rounding down mechanic.

Anubis said:
Also, I understand and realize that UK could very well get different ratings for many of these creatures due to the fact that not all pertinent factors are in the PDF (and thus must be rated ad hoc).

Even I can't remember all the stuff I have changed. :p

Anubis said:
I came to these numbers using my judgment on things that were not rated in the PDF for various things. For instance, I do not count the stirges attach ability at all (the reasoning is simple: the stirge loses all defenses while attached, and unlike other attach abilities that use improved grab and grappling, this ability proves to be pretty worthless as it disables the stirge), and I also count the gelatinous cube's transparency to be worth 0.2 and the engulf ability to be worth 0.5 . . . Basically, many of these are judgment calls, and UK and I will likely have differing opinions on some things. These numbers, however, I can guarantee to be 99% accurate by the PDF, so it's safe to use them in your games if you use this system.

Besides, UK shouldn't have to do ALL the work. I'll be keying more creatures as I go along. In fact, I'd be more than happy to release all my results on the boards as I get them.

Anyway, enjoy!

If you get close enough then the odd fractional discrepancy here and there doesn't really matter...that much. :p
 

Hiya mate! :)

Sonofapreacherman said:
Wow. So much new information to deal with.

Deep Breaths. ;)

Sonofapreacherman said:
First of all, I believe the equation that Anubis pulled out of his hat (CR-2 = EL/4) is worth embracing. That's right. It's appears to be a good, clean solution. I can't stand arbitrary solutions any more than the next poster on this board. This new equation makes sense.

To paraphrase the movie 'Die Hard':

"Well we don't keep him around for his charming personality." :p

Sonofapreacherman said:
Second of all...

Upper_Krust.

I think this new "count everything" idea (regarding racial abilities) needs to be examined more closely. I like it, but I'm not sure about it. Still reading (I'm in a rush today). The point is... I'd like to see it work. How else can we cook the books so that all the core races come out to ECL 0.

Everything less than +0.9 (or +0.5 even) rounds down to ECL 0.

Sonofapreacherman said:
I agree that poisons are rated too harshly. My own playtesting bared that one out too.

Halving seems to work

Sonofapreacherman said:
Lastly (for the moment), I think goblins and kobolds moving at 30 feet is completely acceptable. Both races are a skitterish lot, well accustomed to making cowardly retreats.

:D

:)
 

Ah yes. Those plucky WotC designers...

They do mean well.

-----

Ed: "There's a section on setting target challenge ratings for new monsters and material on how to consider CRs for advanced monsters. We talk about how to playtest a CR and we also talk about how adding a class level to your monster affects its CR. This is more detailed than we've published before but, remember, setting CRs isn't a complete formula; you have to playtest and use your judgment"

Andy: "As always, it's a combination of numbers and judgment. The game's not cut-and-dried enough for a simple system to cover all the variables."

-----

If only they knew the labors that are being wrought, unknown to their "in-house" R&D department.

And lo, the revised Challenge Rating system did rise from beneath the ashes of version 3.0, but alas, the solution did not come from WotC, much to their chagrin.
 

Hiya mate! :)

Incidently I have been working on V.4 this week. Its pretty much finished but for the entire Monster Manual and Epic Level Handbook list of monsters (re)rated to whatever decimal place I get taken...not really looking forward to that again. :(

Sonofapreacherman said:
Ah yes. Those plucky WotC designers...

They do mean well.

-----

Ed: "There's a section on setting target challenge ratings for new monsters and material on how to consider CRs for advanced monsters. We talk about how to playtest a CR and we also talk about how adding a class level to your monster affects its CR. This is more detailed than we've published before but, remember, setting CRs isn't a complete formula; you have to playtest and use your judgment"

Andy: "As always, it's a combination of numbers and judgment. The game's not cut-and-dried enough for a simple system to cover all the variables."

-----

If only they knew the labors that are being wrought, unknown to their "in-house" R&D department.

And lo, the revised Challenge Rating system did rise from beneath the ashes of version 3.0, but alas, the solution did not come from WotC, much to their chagrin.

I'll get v.4 published in Dragon magazine and make WotC look like a bunch of goofers...'CR isn't a complete formula indeed'! :rolleyes: :D

Not that they can complain; since I did proffer it to them, albeit too late to make it into the Revised Core Rulebooks. ;)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top