Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread

[Coredump]

Hi Folks...

You seem to think that ECL is independent of CR and EL, but it is not. By every source, ECL IS Level, and thus is counted with CR and EL all the same. You seriously need to just drop the ECL modifiers or list them ONLY as optional with cautions that using them could unbalance things.

But I don't think they are the same. CR/EL is an 'attribute' that is meant to say how tough a monster will be for one (combat) encounter.
ECL is an 'attribute' that is meant to show how useful/powerful/etc. a character is over time. *NOT* just for one combat.

To use a similar example as you. Two fighters, 5th level fighter, +1 ECL race. Lets take the case of an ECL +1 race (RACEX) and a similar ECL +1 race (RACEY). They have similar 'advantages', except RACEX can move a bit faster, gets AMBI as a bonus feat, or something. While RACEY can use Cure Light Wounds as a std action. Now, for a straight up fight, sure RACEX will have an advantage. But since you are supposed to have a number of encounters in a day RACEY is *MUCH* better off.
Over the course of a day, RACEX may have 3-4 encounters, before he needs to recover HP. RACEY can pretty much keep going all day, until he gets bored. Yet, you say they should be equivalent.


Similar, by your theory, a fighter against a thief should be a 50/50 fight. (After all, they are both the same CR) But there is no way an 8th level thief is going to beat an 8th level fighter. The fighter is a better *FIGHTER*, for combat his CR is 'more impressive'. But the Rogue has other talents, while not a 'waste' in a fight; character value *has* to include activities/abilities outside of combat.

.

 

[kreynolds]

But since you are supposed to have a number of encounters in a day RACEY is *MUCH* better off.

RACEY won't make it through one encounter with RACEX. Cure light wounds once per round isn't enough to survive against RACEX. He'll get stomped. Thus, in a 1 on 1 fight, RACEX is actually far more powerful.

The point is two-fold; First, this example doesn't prove that cure light wounds at will deserves an ECL modifier higher than the CR modifier, and second, RACEX is actually more powerful than RACEY. Every round that RACEY heals himself, he can't do anything but move. Next, RACEX closes the distance (he moves faster than normal, so this obviously isn't a problem), then smacks RACEY again. RACEY again moves and heals. RACEX again moves and wacks. Eventually, RACEY will fall. Why? He's too busy healing himself to respond to attacks.

 

[kreynolds]

Yet, you say they should be equivalent.

My previous example with the human and arctic dwarf proves that they should, unless someone can explain the disparity of ECL modifiers for ability scores between two 1st-level characters. Granted, spell-like and supernatural abilities, and some other funky abilities do indeed warrant an ECL modifier higher than a CR modifier, but not all of them.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

As we like to say in Texas...Howdy!

I thought that was just in the movies...you mean they really say that.

I don't think I'm understanding your terminology. What do you mean by...

Do you mean the difference between the above ability score modifiers (+10 Str; +4 Con; -2 Dex; -4 Int; -4 Wis/total 4) and the ability score modifiers derived from an increase in size (+8 Str; -2 Dex; +4 Con/total 10)?

If I'm understanding you, then I take the size modifier (for simplicity) and subtract the difference between the ECL modifiers for the size adjustment and stat modifiers, which would be 0.6? I think I got ya' on this now.

Yes.

I do have one more question though. For ECL, the base ability scores are all 10's, and the modifiers are figured from there. Why? No PC ever has ability scores of all 10's. It's possible, sure, but I've never seen it, and I would find it hard to believe that a single DM out there wouldn't take pity on such a character and allow them to reroll.

...For ECL you only calculate the 'modifier' to ability scores.

The idea of a '10' average is irrelevant if this is some throwback to a previous version of the CR/EL pdf then I apologise. But suffice to say kick the notion to the curb.

With that said, why isn't the base considered higher? NPCs are not expected to have higher stats, but PCs most assuredly are. What's confusing me is this: At character creation, I roll my stats and get the following; Str 12, Dex 10, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 13. Why is my ECL not immediately adjusted up by +1.0?

Because the system does not purport to accomodate good luck. It only accomodates set facts.

Rolling high ability scores is luck.

Automatically gaining high scores from a Template or as a Racial Modifier is a set fact.

If the base for ability scores is 10, then I exceed some of them. But, if I'm a 1-HD monster PC, and that includes a Strength modifier of +2, which gives me a total Strength score of 12 (from the base of 10), I get hit with a +0.2 ECL modifier? That doesn't seem very consistent, and it certainly doesn't feel very intuitive.

Think of it like this.

Treat ECL as you would a Template.

Basically, I'm wondering why the base for ability scores is figured up so low for ECL when it is such a rare case for a PC to even have stats at that base. Basically, there's an incongruity here, and it's a glaring one. Here's an example using the base of 10 for two different characters...

1st level human fighter created: Str 12, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10.
No ECL Modifier.
1st level arctic dwarf fighter (RoF; ability modifiers +4 Str; -2 Dex; +2 Con, -2 Cha/total +2) created: Str 14, Dex 8, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8)
+0.2 ECL Modifier.

See? Both are 1st level characters. The human has unbalanced ability scores over the base by +2 but no ECL modifier. The artic dwarf has unbalanced ability socres over the base by +2 and has an ECL modifier.

Yes it has an ECL modifier which in and of itself amounts to nothing since we don't rate ECLs unless they are better than +0.5 (In fact technically we don't rate them until they are better than +1 but I could see people exploiting that with +0.9 ECL races so its better to outlaw anything between +0.5 and +1).

I think the base for ability scores needs to be redefined for PCs.

I don't think it should have a modifier for anything, or at the very least, the base needs to be moved up from 10.

What base!? There is no base!

Punk.

Thanks!

Anytime.

 

[kreynolds]

Hiya mate!

Howdy!

I thought that was just in the movies...you mean they really say that.

Damn straight!

Yes.

Cool.

...For ECL you only calculate the 'modifier' to ability scores.

And if the modifier is no better than what a freshly created character could get? It doesn't make a lot sense, unless you're using point buy, in which case you won't run into this problem.

...Think of it like this.

Treat ECL as you would a Template.

I charge the exact same amount to a PC for a template that I would a monster. No more, no less. Hasn't caused a problem that I couldn't handle yet.

What base!? There is no base!

Ah, but there is. It just isn't accounted for in your system, something I hadn't realized until now. The flaw is that the system doesn't accomodate "luck", but that's ok. That's what common sense is for. If player 1 rolls one 12 and five 10s, and player two rolls all 10s but chooses a race with +2 to one stat, neither have an advantage over the other. The race effectively has an ECL modifier of +0 (no matter how small the modifier, even if +0.2, it's still there) They are perfectly equal, yet your system dictates otherwise.

I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around that.

 

[Anubis]

I don't think that's what Anubis was suggesting. I think he was suggesting to drop the ECL modifiers for ability scores, just as they aren't counted with CR. I could be wrong though.

You're absolutely right, this is precisely what I meant. Your post before this one also tells the story perfectly.

 

[Anubis]

Allow me to clrify my position.

For monster races, I do not think ability scores should apply to CR OR ECL. (Size is different because it has more than one specific impact.)

FOr TEMPLATES, however, the ability scores SHOULD be counted, and the reasoning is because a template is never a race in and of itself. You can't just have a flat "Vampire" or "Ghost". They have to go on top of OTHER races, and therefore adds MORE to an existing race.

Anyway, that's what I have to say on that.

 

[Coredump]

HI KReynolds

RACEY won't make it through one encounter with RACEX. Cure light wounds once per round isn't enough to survive against RACEX. He'll get stomped. Thus, in a 1 on 1 fight, RACEX is actually far more powerful.

Two things
First, since the only main difference is one feat, toe to toe, it will be close. RACEX will usually win, but I don't think it will always be a massacre

Second, *EXACTLY* my point. Yes, in a one-on-one fight, RACEX has an advantage, he is a tougher 'one combat' opponent. So according to other examples here, *that* is reason for him to have a higher CR/ECL. But I disagree. A player is more than 'one combat'

Take these two as separate players. Lets run two solo adventures to remove variables.

RACEX: Runs into 4 orcs-kills them takes 8 of 40 Hps. (32)
Runs into 2 ogres-kills them, takes 9 of 40 hps (23)
Runs into 6 kobolds-kills them, takes 5 hps (18)
Runs into one Hell Hound-kills it takes 11 hps (7pts)
He now decides it is time to stop, and maybe go back to town for healing, whatever

RACEY: 4orcs-10 of 40 damage (32)
Heals between combat (40)
2 ogres 14 damage (26)
heals (40)
6 kobolds- 8 damage (32)
Heals (40)
Hell Hound - 19 damage (21)
Heals (40)

While RACEX is going back to camp/town/whatever, RACEY only has to worry if he can carry all of the loot!

This is my point, CR should use what is useful for 'one combat', because it is being used to gauge a creature that is being used for ..... one combat. ECL needs to have slightly different concerns, since it is being used to gauge *more* than just one combat.


Similarly, instead of race/lvl, try with lvl/lvl
How would a combat go between a fighter 8 vs. a fighter4/rogue4?
I would have to say that the Fighter 8 has a definite advantage; so should fighter levels have a higher CR/ECL than rogue levels?


CR is a fine metric, as long you people recognize *what* it is measuring. It is measuring 'danger level' for one encounter. ECL is measuring 'added effectiveness' over many many many encounters, and between encounters, etc.

.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy!

Hiya mate!

And if the modifier is no better than what a freshly created character could get? It doesn't make a lot sense, unless you're using point buy, in which case you won't run into this problem.

If you see 'luck' as a problem then I suppose you are right.

I charge the exact same amount to a PC for a template that I would a monster. No more, no less. Hasn't caused a problem that I couldn't handle yet.

Fair enough, I was just trying to make things simpler for everyone.

Ah, but there is. It just isn't accounted for in your system, something I hadn't realized until now. The flaw is that the system doesn't accomodate "luck", but that's ok.

I fail to see how not accomodating luck is a 'flaw'.

Wheres a 'Heisenberg Compensator' when you need one!?

That's what common sense is for. If player 1 rolls one 12 and five 10s, and player two rolls all 10s but chooses a race with +2 to one stat, neither have an advantage over the other. The race effectively has an ECL modifier of +0 (no matter how small the modifier, even if +0.2, it's still there) They are perfectly equal, yet your system dictates otherwise.

I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around that.

Did you ever penalise a player for rolling up good ability scores before!? I doubt it, and I don't think its something you should instigate now.

 

[Anubis]

HI KReynolds



Two things
First, since the only main difference is one feat, toe to toe, it will be close. RACEX will usually win, but I don't think it will always be a massacre

Second, *EXACTLY* my point. Yes, in a one-on-one fight, RACEX has an advantage, he is a tougher 'one combat' opponent. So according to other examples here, *that* is reason for him to have a higher CR/ECL. But I disagree. A player is more than 'one combat'

Take these two as separate players. Lets run two solo adventures to remove variables.

RACEX: Runs into 4 orcs-kills them takes 8 of 40 Hps. (32)
Runs into 2 ogres-kills them, takes 9 of 40 hps (23)
Runs into 6 kobolds-kills them, takes 5 hps (18)
Runs into one Hell Hound-kills it takes 11 hps (7pts)
He now decides it is time to stop, and maybe go back to town for healing, whatever

RACEY: 4orcs-10 of 40 damage (32)
Heals between combat (40)
2 ogres 14 damage (26)
heals (40)
6 kobolds- 8 damage (32)
Heals (40)
Hell Hound - 19 damage (21)
Heals (40)

While RACEX is going back to camp/town/whatever, RACEY only has to worry if he can carry all of the loot!

This is my point, CR should use what is useful for 'one combat', because it is being used to gauge a creature that is being used for ..... one combat. ECL needs to have slightly different concerns, since it is being used to gauge *more* than just one combat.


Similarly, instead of race/lvl, try with lvl/lvl
How would a combat go between a fighter 8 vs. a fighter4/rogue4?
I would have to say that the Fighter 8 has a definite advantage; so should fighter levels have a higher CR/ECL than rogue levels?


CR is a fine metric, as long you people recognize *what* it is measuring. It is measuring 'danger level' for one encounter. ECL is measuring 'added effectiveness' over many many many encounters, and between encounters, etc.

.

Now I will shoot this logic out of the water. CR is NOT the measure of challenge for an encounter in the new system, it's a direct measure of power.

Now you make some pretty valid claims about usefulness . . . HOWEVER . . . You forget that CR is based around fresh PCs against a fresh encounter EVERY TIME. The CR system has NEVER taken into account the number of encounters before resting . . . ever. Does it mention that? Yes. Why? To let the DM know how many they can handle normally, nothing more.

I can prove this. With standard wealth, a Level 5 cleric can have multiple Wands of Cure Light Wounds. THIS in and of itself will allow a party of PCs to have more encounters before resting. Do you raise that PCs ECL just for having good items? NO!

Now understand this. Yeah, Cure Light Wounds at will is useful and it allows PCs to go longer before resting. So what? Like I said, that ain't part of level, CR, EL, OR ECL. Never has been, never will be, and it shouldn't be. Epic characters go longer as well. It's just a fact of life! How about the fact that by the rules, an item that can use Cure Light Wounds at will only costs 1800 gp! (I doubled its cost ad hoc due to the usefulness as per the rules, but it's still cheap as Hell and obtainable by Level 4 EASILY.) Again, do you raise that PCs ECL just for having good items? NO! So how is Cure Light Wounds at will so great? It allows you to have more encounters fresh. If anything, this makes the CRs MORE accurate as direct ECL as all encounters will likely be fresh v. fresh as intended. Better yet, how does resting hurt the PCs? You act like not having to rest is a great waste or something. Not so. They leave, rest, and come back. No difference except a couple of days. No biggie! Same difference! In fact, resting may be a BOON because you can unload treasure at home and go back able to carry more!

So you see, there really is no reason to boost ECL because, well, there simply is no logic in it. Encounters are supposed to be fresh v. fresh anyway.

Anyway, I would like to apologize if this sounds harsh at all, you should all know my mannerisms by now. I mean no harm! I just tell it like it is, really. Just trying to show how these things really effect games to the core.