SRD Additions

[Blacksad]

These are *your* assumptions, and are not really represented in the ELH rules - and only vaguely supported in the core rules. The biggest jump in power for a sorcerer is not level 1 to level 2 (as your statement would suggest), but 5th level to 6th. In fact, 17th to 18th is a larger power difference for sorcerers than 1st to 2nd!

One of the largest jumps, though, promises to be 20th to 21st, or perhaps 23rd to 24th.

That's why I said that the final judge for CR should be a challenging encounter for 4 PCs of that level, not other arbitrary stats.

not really his, but ours (i.e. I too, think that his system actually work).

To you the jump in power means higher level spell, doesn't it?

Now try a fight between a level 17 and a level 18 sorcerer, the number of hit point, increased saves, etc... prevent the combat from during only one round, but it doesn't require a lot of luck for having more damage done to the level 18, and the difference in hit point between the two caster isn't great, so the level 17 has some chances.

While between a level 1 and a level 2, if both throw a magic missile, the level 1 will always die first (unless he has taken the toughness feat, but I don't see many sorcerer doing this).

Also on the "big" jump at level 21, try to produce a meaningfull epic spell with a DC 80 (spellcraft 24 ranks +8 int +2 skill focus +30 item).

That was just looking at sorcerer, you can't honestly say that the difference between a level 1 and a level 2 fighter is less important than the difference between a level 17 and a level 18 fighter.

 

[Nightfall]

I personally want both the D&Dmg and the ELH. I think both can and should be used by companies that WANT to use. I know for me, Ethan Skamp indicated that while the ELH wouldn't be used in present day Scarn, pre-divine war COULD and probably WOULD have epic levels in them. That said, I do think there's room as long as it done on a MINIMAL level (no real epic level magic items, a few epic level monsters (at least with advantage dragon template and maybe paragon), and definately epic level class advancement for a small handful of NPCs.)

 

[CRGreathouse]

Now try a fight between a level 17 and a level 18 sorcerer, the number of hit point, increased saves, etc... prevent the combat from during only one round, but it doesn't require a lot of luck for having more damage done to the level 18, and the difference in hit point between the two caster isn't great, so the level 17 has some chances.

While between a level 1 and a level 2, if both throw a magic missile, the level 1 will always die first (unless he has taken the toughness feat, but I don't see many sorcerer doing this).

Also on the "big" jump at level 21, try to produce a meaningfull epic spell with a DC 80 (spellcraft 24 ranks +8 int +2 skill focus +30 item).

That was just looking at sorcerer, you can't honestly say that the difference between a level 1 and a level 2 fighter is less important than the difference between a level 17 and a level 18 fighter.

1. A 17th level sorcerer would have little realistic chance to take out an 18th level sorcerer. The power of 9th level spells is awesome - time stop, alone, could force a victory.
2. I wasn't talking so much about epic spells as epic feats, though epic spells could certainly make a difference. Still, this point is open for debate - I even noted that 23-24 might be bigger.
3. What you've tried to show is that on levels 1-5 an increase of 1 level is more important than a similar increase at levels 15-20. What you've shown is that this is true in certain cases. What I'm saying is that it's irrelevant: the discusion is how well this holds over levels 21+ under ELH rules vs. IH rules.

not really his, but ours (i.e. I too, think that his system actually work).

U_K's IH rules work well on their own, but they don't work with ELH rules. His power curve is much less steep on epic levels.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

These are *your* assumptions, and are not really represented in the ELH rules - and only vaguely supported in the core rules.

Lets look at some fundamentals:

Firstly, level increases are balanced (as best as WotC can get them). This is what Effective Character Level (ECL) is all about.

Secondly, Classes are balanced. According to the Core Rules a 19th-level Rogue is equal to a 10th-level Paladin/9th-level Cleric who is equal to a 17th-level Sorceror Lich.

Thirdly, four characters of CR 'x' are equal to one character of CR 'x+4'. That is the 50/50 encounter!

The biggest jump in power for a sorcerer is not level 1 to level 2 (as your statement would suggest), but 5th level to 6th. In fact, 17th to 18th is a larger power difference for sorcerers than 1st to 2nd!

One of the largest jumps, though, promises to be 20th to 21st, or perhaps 23rd to 24th.

I'm not interested in 'jumps of power'. As far as I'm concerned WotC have balanced the levels and classes (as best they can).

What I am interested in is how ECL affects CR at high levels.

Under your auspices a character of CR 'x' should never defeat a CR 'x+9'. In fact CR 'x+9' is would defeat 16 characters of CR 'x'!

Lets just put that into practice. So what you would have us believe is if we add 9 Rogue levels to Zeus he would be superior to 16 current Zeus facsimilies!?!?

That's why I said that the final judge for CR should be a challenging encounter for 4 PCs of that level, not other arbitrary stats.

I would suggest the final judge of CR should be a 50/50 encounter with a party of four.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Secondly, Classes are balanced. According to the Core Rules a 19th-level Rogue is equal to a 10th-level Paladin/9th-level Cleric who is equal to a 17th-level Sorceror Lich.

What I am interested in is how ECL affects CR at high levels.

In your article, you say that the ECL mod is the same as the CR mod. Why is this? They measure two very different things.

Did you read the ECL article on montecook.com?

 

[Blacksad]

In your article, you say that the ECL mod is the same as the CR mod. Why is this? They measure two very different things.

Did you read the ECL article on montecook.com?

the ECL is the same as the CR for the first 20 levels.

the ECL serve you to determine your needed xp level.

because a ECL 110 character has a really hard time vs 10 ECL 100 character or if you keep the normal sytem vs 10 CR 100 creatures, UK alter the axiom of +1 ECL = +1 CR.

He wants to keep the elegant part of the CR sytem:
-you need 13.33 encounter of similar CR to yours to rise a level
-a CR X+4 creatures equal 4 CR X creatures IIRC

So he defines in parallel with the ECL of the character a CR that serve the DM to determine challenge and xp awards.

a ECL 100 character with UK system has no chances vs a CR 100 creature, but a CR 100 PC has some chances (I do not remember the ECL of a CR100 character).

montecook refer I think to what is now called Level Adjustment (LA) IIRC, and he explains that a monster PC hasn't an ECL (level+LA) that equal that monster CR (base CR+level) as an NPC, because a monster stay up for one fight and wether a spell-like ability is usablle 3 times per day or at will doesn't make a big difference in it's CR, while it's very important for ECL.

It's tricky because WotC misused their terms in the DMG changed the definition in the FRCS and will change them once again in Savages Species (LA instead of ECL).

UK use the FRCS way, i.e. drizzt is ECL 18 and CR 18, and do not follow unofficial comments by sean or monte on the impossibility of fixing a CR for PC.

So with UK system you loose the "I'm level 100 I can kill CR 100 creatures", but you keep the CR X+4 has a 50% chance of killing 4 CR X creaatures, which is the assumption of the ELH.

 

[CRGreathouse]

the ECL is the same as the CR for the first 20 levels.

In U_K's system, anyway.

So with UK system you loose the "I'm level 100 I can kill CR 100 creatures", but you keep the CR X+4 has a 50% chance of killing 4 CR X creaatures, which is the assumption of the ELH.

The ELH assumes that level (or ECL) 100 characters can defeat a CR 100 monster.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi guys!

Firstly, thanks Blacksad for filling in for me in my absence. The boards have been noticably slower for me these last 24 hours.

a ECL 100 character with UK system has no chances vs a CR 100 creature, but a CR 100 PC has some chances (I do not remember the ECL of a CR100 character).

My article only goes up to CR50 since that takes you up to ECL 160.

After that:

CR 60 = ECL 320
CR 70 = ECL 640
CR 80 = ECL 1280
CR 90 = ECL 2560
CR 100 = ECL 5120

The ELH assumes that level (or ECL) 100 characters can defeat a CR 100 monster.

But thats my whole point - its just bonkers! The way they do it you may as well throw the whole mechanic out the window!

You still haven't replied to my Zeus example!

According to the official rules if we add 9 Rogue levels to Zeus he should be capable of defeating 16 Zeus facsimilies!

...and since this obviously isn't the case - their system is broken! Thats not my assumption - its a proven fact!

Whether you agree or not with my solution is one thing, but not recognising that their is a problem to begin with is something I can't fathom at all!?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Re: level 100 taking on CR 100

But thats my whole point - its just bonkers! The way they do it you may as well throw the whole mechanic out the window!

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Creatures in the ELH are given a CR based on the level typical characters could defeat it. Thus, in the ELH, 4 ECL X characters can defeat a CR X creature - by definition! Since your system does not accept this, it's totally incompatible with the ELH.

According to the official rules if we add 9 Rogue levels to Zeus he should be capable of defeating 16 Zeus facsimilies!

At higher levels, it seems that 4 CR X = 1 CR (X+4) no longer holds. I'm not sure... I'd have to go through the epic rules more carefully.

 

[tjasamcarl]

UK, as silly as ever...

The CR system isn't 'bonkers', its a rough tool. Wotc admitted as much in the DMG. It is balanced against min/maxed characters and under the assumption that a party's strengths and weaknesses would balance out in the end.

What you did was take a rough guide, threw in a few abstractions without looking at REAL rules changes, and then pretended that you had found the 'essense' of DND balance. Yeah, brilliant....What it must be like to never be in possession of impressions and biases that aren't 'proven facts'...