Revised CRs/ECLs - Thread #3

[Darkness]

Links to previous threads:
Thread #1
Thread #2

Happy posting, guys.

 

[ciaran00]

v4?? v4????????????

*waits anxiously for v4*
*paces*

ciaran

 

[kreynolds]

UK,

Here's something I've been curious about. There doesn't seem to be that much of a disparity between some of your ECLs (when reduced by a third) and WotC ECLs, but there is a big one with Natural Armor. You rate it at +0.1/point of natural armor, while WotC effectively rates it at +0.2/point of natural armor.

So, I guess I have three questions.
1) Do you still rate it at +0.1/point?
2) If not, and you raised it, what drove you to raise it?
3) If you didn't raise it, why do you think WotC rates it so high? Is it just a case of them being ultra-conservative?

I ask because most of your CR modifiers convert rather well to WotC ECL modifiers. There are exceptions, however, like fast healing. In those cases, I rate it the best I can. Natural Armor seems to be one of those exceptions, as there is a huge difference between how the two of you rate it.

 

[ciaran00]

Eldorian, I had a question about your SR system posted here:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showpost.php?p=880090&postcount=42

For drow, the SR would remain constant around 10. Doesn't this mean that against opponents with equal EL, a drow has a 45/55 chance against magic? Doesn't that seem terribly high?

Compartively, with old SR, an opponent of equal level as the drow would always penetrate SR... am I wrong?

ciaran

 

[Upper_Krust]

Thanks for the new thread Darkness mate; as ever, these things inevitably become unwieldy.

Hi there ciaran!

*waits anxiously for v4*
*paces*

I have actually got myself temporarily distracted with other aspects of the Immortals Handbook (namely the 3.5 updates and rejigging the Divine Gifts so I don't need Deiries & Demigods entered into the SRD).

I'll see what I can do with it tonight and tomorrow.

All of the mechanics are more or less finished though some of the text hasn't been - and I still don't have the entire list of monsters (from MM 3.5 and ELH*) done yet, that latter aspect really feels like a chore to be honest and thats why I have probably been dragging my heels on Version 4.

*updated for 3.5

 

[Upper_Krust]

UK,

Hiya mate!

I'm just wondering how close I am to your numbers.

+0.35/point per round

So...how close am I?

Fast Healing (and indeed Regeneration) are tricky buggers.

At the moment I actually have both (pencilled in) at +0.1/point.

So essentially we are asking is Fast Healing 10 equal to DR 5/-.

Thats pretty tricky.

DR applies to all attacks in a round whereas Fast Healing only applies once. However it is internal rather than external in that it works even after the battle. You have to assume though that most characters will have access to healing magic anyway, though not necessarily DR.

If we extend the ability and ask: Is Fast Healing 50 equal to DR 25/-?

So I am fairly happy with the current +0.1/point rating - of course the ability should probably not fall into the hands of players until epic (or at least high 13+) levels.

Here's something I've been curious about. There doesn't seem to be that much of a disparity between some of your ECLs (when reduced by a third) and WotC ECLs, but there is a big one with Natural Armor. You rate it at +0.1/point of natural armor, while WotC effectively rates it at +0.2/point of natural armor.

So, I guess I have three questions.
1) Do you still rate it at +0.1/point?

Another tricky one.

I actually still have it (again pencilled in) at +0.1/point, yes. But I am not yet 100% sure thats right.

What you have to ask: Is +10 Natural Armour equal to DR 5/-?

I think the answer there is maybe.

Natural Armour is not something I really advocate boosting if you can avoid it - unless you have a practical reason. I mean its 'natural', y'know.

However I do have a very good mechanic for determining Natural Armour in a Monster Creation section of the Design Parameters of Version 4.

3) If you didn't raise it, why do you think WotC rates it so high? Is it just a case of them being ultra-conservative?

I think in their case its better to err on the side of caution.

I ask because most of your CR modifiers convert rather well to WotC ECL modifiers. There are exceptions, however, like fast healing. In those cases, I rate it the best I can. Natural Armor seems to be one of those exceptions, as there is a huge difference between how the two of you rate it.

There is evidence to support +0.1 AND +0.2. I would say that increasing Natural Armour 'unnaturally' is probably +0.2 whereas increasing it 'naturally' is +0.1.

 

[kreynolds]

Fast Healing (and indeed Regeneration) are tricky buggers.

You ain't kiddin'!

At the moment I actually have both (pencilled in) at +0.1/point.

So essentially we are asking is Fast Healing 10 equal to DR 5/-.

Thats pretty tricky.

DR applies to all attacks in a round whereas Fast Healing only applies once. However it is internal rather than external in that it works even after the battle. You have to assume though that most characters will have access to healing magic anyway, though not necessarily DR.

If we extend the ability and ask: Is Fast Healing 50 equal to DR 25/-?

So I am fairly happy with the current +0.1/point rating - of course the ability should probably not fall into the hands of players until epic (or at least high 13+) levels.

It's definately very useful to PCs, I have to admit that now, though the impact upon the game isn't as bad as I thought it would be. I also agree that fast healing probably shouldn't be available except to mid-level and higher characters.

Here's how I came up with my numbers for fast healing, if you're interested. WotC says fast healing up to 3 is +1 LA. So, as you've probably guessed, I just divided 1 by 3 to determine what it would be per point. I'm thinking that my numbers are too high, which is the primary reason why I posted them and asked you about it.

The new numbers I had been kicking around were +0.15/point or +0.2/point. But, like you pointed out, there's a disparity between fast healing inside and outside of combat.

Fast Healing 3 inside of combat is a really poor version of DR, essentially. Thus its impact upon the EL of an encounter is actually rather minimal. However, _outside_ of combat, its a whole different ballgame, and its impact upon the rest of the game world can be tremendous. Its a tough call. For combat, I certainly don't see how fast healing could possibly be worth more than +0.1/point, but outside of combat...I mean, how do you handle something like that? I don't want to increase the ECL/LA of fast healing simply to account for noncombat situations, as that would unfairly boost character's ECL, inaccurately representing their power. I also don't want to ignore its usefulness outside of combat, but nor do I want to keep track of two separate ECLs/LAs (combat/noncombat).

Now, like you said, at high levels, characters generally have good access to healing anyway, and since fast healing can be shared among the party members, there's very little impact there. I suppose the higher level you get, the less you have to worry about it. One of the games I'm running just hit epic, and one of the characters had Fast Healing 1. Aside from her healing between fights, there was absolutely no impact upon combat itself. It didn't make her tougher during a fight. I didn't make her more deadly. It didn't do anything at all. Effectively, she simply had Ultimate Damage Resistance 1. As such, I didn't even bother rating her fast healing higher than what is suggested in v3 of your Doc.

It's weird. I guess the problem I have with my numbers, and WotC's numbers, is that they are only that high to account for noncombat situations.

Another tricky one.

I actually still have it (again pencilled in) at +0.1/point, yes. But I am not yet 100% sure thats right.

What you have to ask: Is +10 Natural Armour equal to DR 5/-?

I think the answer there is maybe.

So do I, which is why I currently have been thinking of rating it at +0.125/point or +0.15/point. But if I rate it at +0.15/point, that mucks up the rating of Deflection, and deflection is certainly far better than natural armor. I don't think that deflection necessarily warrants an increase either. I think it sits well at about +0.15/point (though I could understand +0.175/point).

Natural Armour is not something I really advocate boosting if you can avoid it - unless you have a practical reason. I mean its 'natural', y'know.

I agree.

I think in their case its better to err on the side of caution.

That's my guess as well.

There is evidence to support +0.1 AND +0.2. I would say that increasing Natural Armour 'unnaturally' is probably +0.2 whereas increasing it 'naturally' is +0.1.

Sounds a little "situational", don't ya' think?

 

[ciaran00]

U_K sez:

All of the mechanics are more or less finished though some of the text hasn't been - and I still don't have the entire list of monsters (from MM 3.5 and ELH*) done yet, that latter aspect really feels like a chore to be honest and thats why I have probably been dragging my heels on Version 4.

Take your time, UK... I understand how house rules can seem eventually like a chore. I have been dragging my feet on my own house rules for a long while...

Looking forward to it.

ciaran

 

[kreynolds]

UK,

Here's another question I thought I had already asked, but can't find in the old threads. Are racial bonuses to saving throws covered? Like a racial bonus to saves vs poison? Its not covered in v3 of your PDF, but I could have sworn I remembered this coming up in discussion at some point (particularly the poison bit and dwarves).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

You ain't kiddin'!

It's definately very useful to PCs, I have to admit that now, though the impact upon the game isn't as bad as I thought it would be. I also agree that fast healing probably shouldn't be available except to mid-level and higher characters.

Trust in Krust!

Here's how I came up with my numbers for fast healing, if you're interested. WotC says fast healing up to 3 is +1 LA. So, as you've probably guessed, I just divided 1 by 3 to determine what it would be per point. I'm thinking that my numbers are too high, which is the primary reason why I posted them and asked you about it.

Well even the fast Healing Epic Feat gives you Fast Healing 3; so clearly it isn't that good once you start to allow access to it.

The new numbers I had been kicking around were +0.15/point or +0.2/point. But, like you pointed out, there's a disparity between fast healing inside and outside of combat.

Fast Healing 3 inside of combat is a really poor version of DR, essentially. Thus its impact upon the EL of an encounter is actually rather minimal. However, _outside_ of combat, its a whole different ballgame, and its impact upon the rest of the game world can be tremendous.

Its a tough call. For combat, I certainly don't see how fast healing could possibly be worth more than +0.1/point, but outside of combat...I mean, how do you handle something like that?

I don't want to increase the ECL/LA of fast healing simply to account for noncombat situations, as that would unfairly boost character's ECL, inaccurately representing their power. I also don't want to ignore its usefulness outside of combat, but nor do I want to keep track of two separate ECLs/LAs (combat/noncombat).

For the sake of brevity I would simply leave it at +0.1/point. I really don't think that Fast Healing does give High Level/Epic Level players a great advantage. Healing magic is prevailant from high levels onwards to such an extent that Fast Healing won't make a great difference at all.

Now, like you said, at high levels, characters generally have good access to healing anyway, and since fast healing can be shared among the party members, there's very little impact there.

I presume you meant to say it can't be shared?

I suppose the higher level you get, the less you have to worry about it. One of the games I'm running just hit epic, and one of the characters had Fast Healing 1. Aside from her healing between fights, there was absolutely no impact upon combat itself. It didn't make her tougher during a fight. I didn't make her more deadly. It didn't do anything at all. Effectively, she simply had Ultimate Damage Resistance 1. As such, I didn't even bother rating her fast healing higher than what is suggested in v3 of your Doc.

I think +0.1 is fair all round.

It's weird. I guess the problem I have with my numbers, and WotC's numbers, is that they are only that high to account for noncombat situations.

Fast Healing can easily be abused though - I was working out the Hecatonchiere CR earlier (CR 106 for those interested) and the combined Fast Healing and Regen of 90 really has an impact on that monster...though its also practical doubles the recommended dosage I advocate for something with 52 HD.

So do I, which is why I currently have been thinking of rating it at +0.125/point or +0.15/point. But if I rate it at +0.15/point, that mucks up the rating of Deflection, and deflection is certainly far better than natural armor. I don't think that deflection necessarily warrants an increase either. I think it sits well at about +0.15/point (though I could understand +0.175/point).

Tampering with Natural Armour (or indeed AC in general) really can make a big difference to a character or monster. Which is why I advocate adhering to my Monster Design Parameters.

Sounds a little "situational", don't ya' think?

I think its more a case to be handled within the Design Parameters.

'Unnaturally' boosting Natural Armour can easily lead to abuse.