Revised CRs/ECLs - Thread #3

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Kavon mate!

*bump*

Hey U_K, how's everything coming allong with this now?

I am currently debating some of the finer points in various threads.

I don't want to say when, because inevitably things always seem to contrive to get in the way.

But soon.

 

[Kavon]

Hi Kavon mate!

Hey U_K

I am currently debating some of the finer points in various threads.

I don't want to say when, because inevitably things always seem to contrive to get in the way.

Well, it's good that people are contributing, and working out possible errors is always good

But soon.

 

[Eldorian]

LOL, they making fun of ya over on nutkinland, UK. Check it: Nutkinland 's UK stuff

The best part was

Ah, if only they'd make fun of me in such clever ways.

Eldorian Antar

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Eldorian mate!

LOL, they making fun of ya over on nutkinland, UK.

Yes, someone else already brought that thread to my attention today. I was wondering whether or not to go over there (which would probably be construed as me 'pimping' ) and 'set them straight' on various matters, there does seem to be a number of misconceptions...

The funniest of course being the people over at Nutkinland who seem to say with authority that theres lots of number crunching. Which of course there isn't, but that initial idea probably springs from the original Challenge Rating/Encounter Levels Document which is virtually all number crunching; even though its not complicated, simply just as detailed as it needs to be.

To be fair it was actually an interesting thread, with some insightful comments.

I may put on my platform shoes and wide brimmed hat and pimp on over there later.

The best part was

*SNIP*

Ah, if only they'd make fun of me in such clever ways.

LOL! Yes I had seen that before, very funny.

If I use that for the cover though I would probably have to pay Stephen Hawking royalties or something.

 

[ciaran00]

a.. a... aaaAAACHOOO.

BUMPITY.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

Apologies for dragging my heels on the matter, I think I should have this ready for Wednesday. *fingers crossed*

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

UGH!

Hey UK, while I desperately try to get up to speed on this thread, can I beg you for a link to your most recent documents? (Like, in your sig?)

Wulf

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Wulf mate!

UGH!

Hey UK, while I desperately try to get up to speed on this thread, can I beg you for a link to your most recent documents? (Like, in your sig?)

Well version 4 is iminent and will be out in a day or so, so best to wait for that. When I have it ready I will start an new thread in the House Rules Forum and add a link at the end of this thread.


The entire list of things to do with version 4 is:

1. Explain how possible Alternate Forms affect CR.
2. Fix the table for Mixed Opponent Encounter Levels.
3. Finish the examples for Situational Modifiers.
4. Revise and Finalise all Class/Prestige Class level challenge ratings (both standard and epic).
5. Revise all the Monster Manual and Epic Monsters (almost certain to take at least a day even for me).

I should have #1-4 finished in a few hours, however, before I undertake #5 can I have a few volunteers to receive an early copy (via email) and give me their feedback ~ just incase I have missed anything.

Revising all the MM and ELH monster CRs is not like 'dusting crops'.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well version 4 is iminent and will be out in a day or so, so best to wait for that.

Thanks UK... been looking over the "old" one (I guess that's what she is) in a "private location" here at work, if you catch my drift...

Couple questions-- and right off the bat, I'll tell you I've been studying mearls' work from the Monster's Handbook:

1) Why do you find attributes so hard to work into the system? Given that there's such a thing as the "default array" I don't see why adding +2 to a particular score off that baseline wouldn't increase the CR. Certainly there's no comparing a fighter with straight 18's to a fighter with straight 10's-- big difference in CR relative to hit bonuses, damage, AC bonus for Dex, initiative bonus, hit points for Con, bonuses to Will saves for Wisdom, skill points for Intelligence, and on and on. I don't find it all that pedantic-- I find it relevant!

2) What about the concept of "relative" CR that mearls uses? To summarize, some abilities are worth more to a low-CR creature than they are to a high-CR creature, and vice versa. A CR20 creature with DR25/+1 gets far less mileage (I'd wager: none) out of that ability than a CR1 creature with DR25/+1 (who will defeat almost all 1st level challengers with that kind of DR). Your system uses "absolute" CR-- so although DR25/+1 justifiably adds +3CR to the CR1 creature, I don't believe it adds +3CR to a CR20 creature. Those are "empty" or wasted points for the CR20 creature.

There are a lot of parallels between your work, by the way-- both excellent analyses. And, apologies in advance if I'm retreading this issue.

3) Last question: When is your work going to be available for reference to me, as a publisher? How can you be properly credited for your ideas?

Wulf

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Wulf mate!

Thanks UK... been looking over the "old" one (I guess that's what she is) in a "private location" here at work, if you catch my drift...

Well I appreciate the interest, though I think the latest version is much better.

Couple questions-- and right off the bat, I'll tell you I've been studying mearls' work from the Monster's Handbook:

Okay. I have never actually seen that but I did read a review once...it gives a points rating to abilities (or something like that)?

1) Why do you find attributes so hard to work into the system? Given that there's such a thing as the "default array" I don't see why adding +2 to a particular score off that baseline wouldn't increase the CR. Certainly there's no comparing a fighter with straight 18's to a fighter with straight 10's-- big difference in CR relative to hit bonuses, damage, AC bonus for Dex, initiative bonus, hit points for Con, bonuses to Will saves for Wisdom, skill points for Intelligence, and on and on. I don't find it all that pedantic-- I find it relevant!

Well I think you can make certain assumptions about the relationship between Hit Dice/Level and Ability Scores so that you don't have to determine ability scores on a case by case basis.

I mean I factor increased Ability Scores from Levels; from Magic Items; from Templates; from Size; from Racial Traits; from Type Traits etc.

You could go the opposite way and factor Ability Scores directly, but then you have to make allowances for levels; for equipment; for racial traits; for size etc.

So do we make allowances for ability scores or do we make allowances for every possible option that grants ability scores. I chose the former.

2) What about the concept of "relative" CR that mearls uses? To summarize, some abilities are worth more to a low-CR creature than they are to a high-CR creature, and vice versa. A CR20 creature with DR25/+1 gets far less mileage (I'd wager: none) out of that ability than a CR1 creature with DR25/+1 (who will defeat almost all 1st level challengers with that kind of DR). Your system uses "absolute" CR-- so although DR25/+1 justifiably adds +3CR to the CR1 creature, I don't believe it adds +3CR to a CR20 creature. Those are "empty" or wasted points for the CR20 creature.

Instead of relative CR I have relative EL. Identifying this is the key to being able to properly rate CRs (especially at epic levels).

Also in v4 there is something called the Golden Rule which influences the CR of relatively weak creatures with exceptionally powerful abilities (which I suppose is the complete opposite of your above concern).

There are a lot of parallels between your work, by the way-- both excellent analyses. And, apologies in advance if I'm retreading this issue.

I must admit I would be interested to see how someone else tackled the idea.

3) Last question: When is your work going to be available for reference to me, as a publisher? How can you be properly credited for your ideas?

When the Immortals Handbook is released (the CR/EL document is included in the Appendices).