SKR's problem with certain high level encounters

[Victim]

Again, I disagree. Just because the potential for something exists doesn't mean that it's good.

For example, a Balor has the potential to cause instant death with his sword because it's Vorpal. That's going to be worth something in terms of CR factors. And it also has an impressive arrary of spell-like abilities. That's going to be worth some CR factors too. However, it can never really use both to full effect at the same time. Therefore, some of those CR things will never come into play.

It works the same way for characters. A cleric might be able to do X, Y, and Z, but he can only choose two. Especially on something like turn undead, which is a choice made at character creation. So assuming that the cleric can do all 3 for the purposes of CR factors is a false assumption.

For example, take an 8th level fighter, 12th level wizard. By using combat buffs, he can still be a very effective fighter with a few other tricks. However, what if he's an Evoker with barred Transmutation? He can blast things, or he can hack them. So his actual effectiveness is always going to be less than the max. Similiarly, consider some monsters with power ranged attacks, and/or flight.

Let's say that the creature has a base CR of 6, and flight and ranged are each +2.

Normal CR 6
Flying CR 8
Ranged CR 8
Flying Ranged 10

However, a creature that can fly but has no ranged attacks doesn't have that much of an advantage. He still has to close within reach to attack, making his flight just some extra speed and a possible escape plan.

You have to consider how everything fits together, and the opportunity costs of using powers. It's not as if characters and monsters can unload all their abilities at the same time, or even be good at all their abilities.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think that people are too quick to throw around "+2 CR", since that is a huge jump in capability. In most cases +1 CR would be appropriate for certain abilities.

The things I'm working on at the moment (inspired by Ryan, but following the plot of my earlier post) is a bunch of simple factors that reflect how a CR is made up.

I would include several potential -1's for vulnerabilities (e.g. turnable, double damage from something, can't attack flyers etc) since if the PC's have the means to take advantage of a vulnerability, they probably will and it will be less of a threat.

Then there are defensive benefits, with a range of +1's (e.g. incorporeal, Damage resistance, ultra high AC) and offensive benefits with a range of +1's (e.g. can cause massive damage check, has an attack which could take out a target instantly, has an area attack, can summon allies etc)

I'm anticipating that the base CR will be based on some fraction of HD as modified by creature type (which rolls up some of the basic immunities, BAB and benefits different creature types get)

(incidentally, I don't think "Undead" as such is a good category for assigning bonus CR - since zombies are undead but shouldn't be worth much extra... so they get the penalty of being turnable but no real benefits from their status. Wraiths, on the other hand, have a very real benefit of incorporeality, which I would want to take account of.)

More on the basics once I've run my initial ideas past a good chunk of the creatures in the Monster Manual.

Cheers

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system

Originally posted by Victim
For example, a Balor has the potential to cause instant death with his sword because it's Vorpal. That's going to be worth something in terms of CR factors. And it also has an impressive array of spell-like abilities. That's going to be worth some CR factors too. However, it can never really use both to full effect at the same time. Therefore, some of those CR things will never come into play.

It works the same way for characters. A cleric might be able to do X, Y, and Z, but he can only choose two. Especially on something like turn undead, which is a choice made at character creation. So assuming that the cleric can do all 3 for the purposes of CR factors is a false assumption.

But I never made that assumption Victim. You did. No offense, but I think you're missing the point. Nobody is saying that a monster or character must use "all" of their special abilities at the same time. In fact, I *just* finished expressing the exact opposite sentiment. Once again, it doesn't matter that a creature was dispatched in 1 round before they could bring all of their might to bear. The danger (Challenge Rating Factors) of that monster is inherent in the threatening *number* of choices available to them.

Originally posted by Victim
For example, take an 8th level fighter, 12th level wizard. By using combat buffs, he can still be a very effective fighter with a few other tricks. However, what if he's an Evoker with barred Transmutation? He can blast things, or he can hack them. So his actual effectiveness is always going to be less than the max. Similarly, consider some monsters with power ranged attacks, and/or flight.

Precisely my earlier point.

"Basically, for almost every generic special ability, spell power level, or extraordinary item, there would be a counter-acting force that *cancels out* their Challenge Rating Factors (all dependant on whichever abilities and items the party currently possesses)."

Using your example, we are talking about two things; spell power level and combat power level. If you didn't catch that implication at first, there would be scaled Challenge Rating Factors for different levels of spell or combat power.

Originally posted by Victim
It's not as if characters and monsters can unload all their abilities at the same time, or even be good at all their abilities.

I already addressed your first point, but as for the second, characters and monsters do not have to be *good* at using their abilities. In fact, they can be *bad* at using them. Their Challenge Rating Factors stem from the raw abilities they possess; or the potential of those abilities. Not whether they use their abilities competently. If they don't, that's their own fault. The opportunity to effectively use their abilities exists. That's all that matters when determining Challenge Rating Factors and their counting-acting forces.

 

[Staffan]

Re: The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system

But I never made that assumption Victim. You did. No offense, but I think you're missing the point. Nobody is saying that a monster or character must use "all" of their special abilities at the same time. In fact, I *just* finished expressing the exact opposite sentiment. Once again, it doesn't matter that a creature was dispatched in 1 round before they could bring all of their might to bear. The danger (Challenge Rating Factors) of that monster is inherent in the threatening *number* of choices available to them.

Be that as it may, I think there should be some sort of "diminishing returns" on multiple abilities. If a monster can already cast Fireball 3 times per day, giving it the ability to cast Lightning Bolt as well doesn't increase its power all that much.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system

Originally posted by Staffan
Be that as it may, I think there should be some sort of "diminishing returns" on multiple abilities. If a monster can already cast Fireball 3 times per day, giving it the ability to cast Lightning Bolt as well doesn't increase its power all that much.

Not it doesn't, and it shouldn't increase its power... *that much*. Let's say casting fireball or lightning bolt as a spell-like ability increases your Challenge Rating Factor by +1 each. So no, it doesn't increase the creature's power significantly, but it does increase the creature's power by a small amount.

If such a creature could cast symbol or wish as a spell-like ability, I think that would increase its Challenge Rating Factor even more, say... by +2 or +3 respectively. As you can see, so far, all of these distinctions easily fall under the ad hoc proposal growing out of this thread.

 

[evildmguy]

Reverse it?

Greetings!

Okay, there have been some good ideas here but I wonder if we don't need to turn things sideways and look at them that way?

A lot of the current discussion goes on potential. If something can do it, even if they never use it, that it adds to the CR for that monster. Discussion further says that if something is +x1 that it is negated by -x1 for overall challange rating.

What if we came at this from the opposite direction?

Take the base, which I liked at 1/2 HD. Then, anything they used or that came into effect, add to the CR of the monster. At the end of the battle, add these up to figure the CR for the group.

For example, a creature with undead (+1) and spell casting (+2) attacks the group. During the fight, the rogue attempted a sneak attack and would have succeeded except for the undead ability. The creature never got a chance to even try to cast a spell, so that never came into play. In the end, then, the creature's CR was 1/2 its HD +1. This would seem to take into effect what did happen instead of what could happen. (Also, notice that because someone was affected by the undead quality, even with a cleric present, the group gets the xp for the undead quality the monster had.)

There are 3 quick problems with this system, and CRs in this discussion, as a whole:

1) At higher levels, this ends up being a lot to track. If the DM uses multiple monsters with different abilities, all must tracked as they come into play. (this isn't tough, that's not my point. It just slows combat and the game down to be tracked)

2) The core rules seem to indicate that whatever abilities a person has IS part of them and not tracked separately. For example, even if a spell caster summons ten monsters, none of the monsters count towards xp. Only the spell caster does. Her CR counts the ability to summon monsters. (I wonder if this indirectly says that potential *does* count?)

3) In the end, isn't it a wash? I mean, when we start averaging these things, as a whole, over the long term they all wash out! Why complicate the system for what is possibly a small pay back?

Just some coppers.

edg

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Re: Reverse it?

Originally posted by evildmguy
A lot of the current discussion goes on potential. If something can do it, even if they never use it, that it adds to the CR for that monster. Discussion further says that if something is +x1 that it is negated by -x1 for overall challenge rating.

I think you're right. Something occurred to me after reading your post. This will sound obvious, but the way I proposed this system certain abilities would have *canceled out* certain other abilities. I now believe that this is the wrong way to approach it.

Rather than having abilities cancel each other out, Challenge Ratings would now be calculated for each player character as a standard rule. These values would be averaged and ultimately replace "Party Level" in the determination of Experience Points.

That way you can still use Challenge Rating Factors to determine a more accurate power level for monsters and characters without having to track which abilities *cancel out* which other abilities. Essentially, a sliding scale between the average "Party Challenge Rating" and monster Challenge Ratings seamlessly determines which abilities cancel out which other abilities (rather than tediously tracking individual abilities throughout every game session).

This brings me full circle back to Upper Krust's idea about Challenge Ratings. His "comparative" Challenge Ratings system would dovetail beautifully with Challenge Rating Factors.

Once again, to read his idea use the link he provided (below) and download issue #6 of Asgard. The article Upper Krust wrote is called "Challenging Challenge Ratings" on page 29.

http://www.d20reviews.com/Natural20/asgard.html

 

[drnuncheon]

Re: Reverse it?

A lot of the current discussion goes on potential. If something can do it, even if they never use it, that it adds to the CR for that monster. Discussion further says that if something is +x1 that it is negated by -x1 for overall challange rating.

What if we came at this from the opposite direction?

Take the base, which I liked at 1/2 HD. Then, anything they used or that came into effect, add to the CR of the monster. At the end of the battle, add these up to figure the CR for the group.

I'm not sure I like this idea - it seems to me like it would encourage people to do bizarre things in oder to maximize the XP gain from an encounter.

Rogue: "It's skeletal? I think I'll try to sneak attack it."
Fighter: "Good job! That's another 100 xp each."
Wizard: "Hey, don't kill it yet - the last time we fought one of these it cast a spell, if we let it cast again it'll be +2 CR..."

In short, you'd be rewarding them for not learning their lesson the first time...

J

 

[Ravellion]

The more I read about CRs and XPs, the more I am drawn towards a freeform XP system.

Rav

 

[Saeviomagy]

I don't think you could ajudicate a CR based on what happened over a combat - it leads to the situation drnuncheon suggested.

You should, however, be able to look at the party, look at the monster, and rule out of the CR any abilities which simply will not apply. For instance, if it's impossible for a cleric to turn a skeleton, due to his pathetic charisma, then the CR of the skeleton shouldn't be reduced due to his undeadness (which would be further broken down into turnable, immune to crits, immune to poison etc) - he's simply not going to be turned,. If the entire party have an immunity to acid, and they're fighting a black dragon, then the dragon's breath should be left out of the equation. If the party use backstabs and poison a lot, then a creature immune to those would be increased in CR a little. Note that in these cases, the defending party tends to get the benefit - the dragon will probably still try to breath on the party, buying them valuable time, the party will (possibly) still attempt backstabbing and poisoning.

Saying that just because the cleric had the potential to turn before he chose a bad charisma is just being silly - you'd be reducing the CR of the creature for no reason. You could make the same argument for any of the cr-modifying items we've already mentioned.