"Rules: Effective Character Levels and Challenge Ratings"

[Anubis]

Re: Re: Re: Examples?

Well if you know your system is overestimating then how can you advocate it!?

I'm being realistic. There will ALWAYS be the need for ad hoc adjudicating, even in the best systems. As someone said earlier, the purpose here is not to find the perfect system that works 100% of the time. That would be impossible. The best we can do is come close to good approximations.

How can you know that when I haven't posted my system yet?

I've been listening and keeping notes on how you rate many things.

I actually worked it out at CR20.

You just proved my point that I am closer than you are. Pit Fiends are weaker than Balors, which in practive and testing are onyl about CR 17, so the Pit Fiend should be about CR 15 or CR 16. Mine comes out to CR 19, which although high, is still closer than your CR 20.

Anything less than 100% is broken.

Nah. 100% is impossible. That would take, pardon the pun, divine intervention. Because there is such a vast array of strange creatures out there, there is no system that works correctly for everything. Whatever system you or I come up with, I can create a creature that will break the system without a problem.

Almost finished. Its looking pretty much perfect.

With Pit Fiends at CR 20, you're far from perfect, at least by your reasoning that anything less than 100% is broken.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

I don't know if this will be lost on you guys, but I'm beginning to see similarities between your electronic interactions and the egotistical trumping that went on between the likes of Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. Granted, those men went on to excel in their chosen fields (by constantly pacing themselves against each other), but I would say it's harder to work together than it is to work by yourselves.

Go for the unified work guys. Give and take. Compromise. If you can both admit that creating a "perfectly" accurate Challenge Rating system is futile, due to the inherent "arbitrary" nature of a Challenge Rating system in the first place, then I am sure you can both adjust your calculations to reach some common ground.

Speaking as a dungeon master interested in the final product of your work, I'd rather see one arbitrary system that works "all of the time", than two arbitrary systems that work "most of the time". Know what I mean?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Examples?

Hi Anubis mate!

I'm being realistic. There will ALWAYS be the need for ad hoc adjudicating, even in the best systems.

I would say there is scope for ad hoc adjudication but I don't think it will be necessary with this new system.

As someone said earlier, the purpose here is not to find the perfect system that works 100% of the time.

That was probably me.

That would be impossible. The best we can do is come close to good approximations.

Exactly. But there are approximations and glaring mistakes.

I've been listening and keeping notes on how you rate many things.

You checking up on me.

You just proved my point that I am closer than you are. Pit Fiends are weaker than Balors, which in practive and testing are onyl about CR 17, so the Pit Fiend should be about CR 15 or CR 16. Mine comes out to CR 19, which although high, is still closer than your CR 20.

If this new system says they are CR20 then they ARE CR20!

Incidently Balors come out at CR20 also.

Nah. 100% is impossible. That would take, pardon the pun, divine intervention.

My specialty.

Because there is such a vast array of strange creatures out there, there is no system that works correctly for everything. Whatever system you or I come up with, I can create a creature that will break the system without a problem.

Only a creature that was purposely designed to break the system should ever naturally break it.

With Pit Fiends at CR 20, you're far from perfect, at least by your reasoning that anything less than 100% is broken.

Perhaps our next test is going to be me taking a Pit Fiend and you taking a party of four 16th-level characters.

 

[demiurgeastaroth]

Re: Re: Examples?

You are forgetting about the DM factor. If a DM is at all competent, the CRs and ECLs work out just fine as equal. Basically, the normal system assumes that a creature of a specific CR is a 20% challenge for four characters of the same level. With a good DM, this is true.

What UK and I have done is basically taken it a step further and gone with the logical conclusion that if a creature of a specific CR is a 20% challenge for four characters of the same level, then CR and ECL MUST be the same.

A non sequitor. It doesn't matter whether thje DM is "good" DM or a bad one, the numbers just don't add up.

CR is, as you say, the rating a monster is given IF it challenges a group to the extent that they can expect to use 20% of their resources to fight it.

Putting a single charecter (even a PC) up against a team of the same level is not this level of challenge - most commonly, the team will go through that character without breaking sweat. (The higher the level, more resources will be used so victory might not be instant - but greater resources are available).

It's true that a cunning DM can make such a character an interesting challenge, in the same way he can make a squad of kobolds and interesting challenge in the right circumstances - but then the DM has the deck stacked in his favour. But he probably has to try harder to achieve this than if he were to use, say, a Troll.

Put any of the Iconic 5th level characters up against a team of 5th level characters, then put that same team up against a Troll, an Ettin, a Phase Spider, a Large Elemental, a Djinn, a Greater Barghest, or a Basilisk. I expect the monsters will provide a noticeably more challenging encounter.

(I chose 5th level purely because I know the CR 5 monsters fairly well; any level/CR comparison would do.)

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: Re: Examples?

What UK and I have done is basically taken it a step further and gone with the logical conclusion that if a creature of a specific CR is a 20% challenge for four characters of the same level, then CR and ECL MUST be the same.

Yeah, better PC equipment, stats, etc. are all irrelevant.

 

[Anubis]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Examples?

If this new system says they are CR20 then they ARE CR20!

Not by any stretch of the imagination, unless you've given them new powers that aren't in the books.

Incidently Balors come out at CR20 also.

Even though they are more powerful than Pit Fiends?

Perhaps our next test is going to be me taking a Pit Fiend and you taking a party of four 16th-level characters.

Been there, done that, got the kill count. Or rather, my players have the kill count. I threw a Balor at a Level 16 party, and they rolled over it like nothing, all thanks to one full attack and Horrid Wilting! Trust me, a Level 16 party can TROUNCE a Balor.

 

[Anubis]

Re: Re: Re: Examples?

Yeah, better PC equipment, stats, etc. are all irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, that is absolutely correct. Those variable are indeed irrelevant. ECL and CR are a measure of a character's powers, and never takes into account equipment. Ad hoc adjudication may be called for with regards to some characters because of greater or lesser wealth, but taken all averages, equipment is no true factor.

Another big reason for this is BECAUSE CR and ECL take PC equipment into account already, and thus are non-factors.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Examples?

Hi Anubis mate!

Not by any stretch of the imagination, unless you've given them new powers that aren't in the books.

Nope.

Even though they are more powerful than Pit Fiends?

The two are virtually identical. Any difference is certainly negligable.

Been there, done that, got the kill count. Or rather, my players have the kill count. I threw a Balor at a Level 16 party, and they rolled over it like nothing, all thanks to one full attack and Horrid Wilting! Trust me, a Level 16 party can TROUNCE a Balor.

I would be sceptical that it was played to its full potential if they just rolled over it. In fact if it went down without at least one player character fatality I would be more than surprised.

Naturally it automatically started with Unholy Aura already active...?

 

[Anubis]

Re: Re: Examples?

I would be sceptical that it was played to its full potential if they just rolled over it. In fact if it went down without at least one player character fatality I would be more than surprised.

The players won initiative, which isn't too difficult. The sorcerer cast Mass Haste, the fighters ran up at full speed, the cleric did the same. The Balor tried Implosion, save was successful. One of the fighters hit with a 20, no crit though, disrupted the Implosion spell (which requires concentration). Sorcerer cast Horrid Wilting once, failed to penetrate SR. Cast it again with partial action, killed it. Both fighters and the cleric survives the Death Throes, and the sorcerer was out of range and no hit by it. All three made the simply DC 15 massive damage save without a problem.

Bam, Balor dead, rolled over with ease.

Naturally it automatically started with Unholy Aura already active...?

Uh, no. I am pretty certain encounters start flat out unless long buffs are on and it's a planned encounter. This was planned, but Unholy Aura is a round/level spell, not a long duration buff. Besides, why would that matter? Unholy Aura wouldn't have changed a thing. The SR would be moot because Balors already have more, and the fighter got a 20 to hit, and the fighters only hit once.

The Balor was a decent "challenge", taking 25% of the party's resources, but it didn't do hardly anything to the PCs.

A Level 20 party would crush a Balor like nothing.

As for it being "ready" with buffs, I am 100% certain that a planned encounter like THAT would warrant a 150% increase in XP as the DMG states outright. CR is determined by a flat fight starting with normal abilities, remember?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Examples?

Hello mate!

The players won initiative, which isn't too difficult.

True.

The sorcerer cast Mass Haste, the fighters ran up at full speed, the cleric did the same.

Okay.

The Balor tried Implosion, save was successful.

First Balor tactical error right there.

One of the fighters hit with a 20, no crit though, disrupted the Implosion spell (which requires concentration).

Sorcerer cast Horrid Wilting once, failed to penetrate SR. Cast it again with partial action, killed it.

Both fighters and the cleric survives the Death Throes, and the sorcerer was out of range and no hit by it. All three made the simply DC 15 massive damage save without a problem.

Bam, Balor dead, rolled over with ease.

High-level encounters can often be short and sweet - 3rd Ed. initiative certainly facilitates this.

Uh, no. I am pretty certain encounters start flat out unless long buffs are on and it's a planned encounter. This was planned, but Unholy Aura is a round/level spell, not a long duration buff.

Its an at will ability. Theres technically no reason why it should ever be 'off'.

Besides, why would that matter? Unholy Aura wouldn't have changed a thing.

+4 to AC and +4 to saves.

The SR would be moot because Balors already have more, and the fighter got a 20 to hit, and the fighters only hit once.

One non-critical hit and a single horrid wilting felled it, I am dubious.

The Balor was a decent "challenge", taking 25% of the party's resources, but it didn't do hardly anything to the PCs.

How would a 20th-level character have fared differently under the same circumstances?

A Level 20 party would crush a Balor like nothing.

Depends how you play the Balor. Obviously a 20th-level party should win, but I don't think its so clear cut with a 16th-level party.

As for it being "ready" with buffs, I am 100% certain that a planned encounter like THAT would warrant a 150% increase in XP as the DMG states outright. CR is determined by a flat fight starting with normal abilities, remember?

I think you have to use a modicum of purpose for NPCs otherwise PCs are always going to 'roll over them'