SRD Additions

Upper_Krust said:
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!? :confused:

If the problem you refer to is the (possible?) breakdown of 4 CR X = 1 CR (X + 4), I'd think the best solution would be a change in the XP table - same XP for CR = level, but drop off more gradually for other CRs (it drops off about 40% now).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Just to recap

UKs CR/Ecl system does not accuratly assess the challenge a party will face given the range of variation in class levels and monsters. Neither does Wotcs... Both are just generalizations..

The difference is UK is framing his as being accurate in all situations, Wotc never did. To that effect Wotc made a judgment about under what class/level circumstances to balance monsters in order to determine CR, choosing the min/max route that is probably the most common and allows dms to assess the EL in the light of this assumption. UK on the other hand is screeching about the valildity of an article thrown together for a free webzine...
 

Incidently I'll deal with tjasamcarls latest batch of jive momentarily.

Hello CRGreathouse mate! :)

CRGreathouse said:
Re: level 100 taking on CR 100

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.

Irrelevant since my system lets you determine both ECL and CR.

Major problems with CRs only really manifest above 20. (Solar and most Dragons being the glaring exceptions that need attention in the MM).

eg. I think the Hecatonchiere in the ELH is CR57 (?). I worked out* the Playtest version to be ECL 113/CR 44 (I'm guessing they are the same?).

*In less than a minute.

CRGreathouse said:
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.

Thank you! :)

CRGreathouse said:
If the problem you refer to is the (possible?) breakdown of 4 CR X = 1 CR (X + 4),

Yes.

CRGreathouse said:
I'd think the best solution would be a change in the XP table - same XP for CR = level, but drop off more gradually for other CRs (it drops off about 40% now).

But why change the Core Mechanic when you can simply addend it for Epic Play.

Why bring the Mountain to Mohammed...etc.
 

Upper_Krust said:
Irrelevant since my system lets you determine both ECL and CR.

Major problems with CRs only really manifest above 20. (Solar and most Dragons being the glaring exceptions that need attention in the MM).

In that case, the problem is that you assume CR and ECL to be equivilent (requiring only translation). Read Monte Cook's article for an example of a CR +2, ECL +15 (or somesuch) creature.

Upper_Krust said:
But why change the Core Mechanic when you can simply addend it for Epic Play.

Why bring the Mountain to Mohammed...etc.

I agree - why move the mountain to Mohammed? Instead of tearing down the perfectly workable CR system and making your system incompatible, why don't you change one small aspect of epic XP?
 

CRGreathouse said:


In that case, the problem is that you assume CR and ECL to be equivilent (requiring only translation). Read Monte Cook's article for an example of a CR +2, ECL +15 (or somesuch) creature.

of a CR 13 vrock NPC:mad: with standard monster array 11 11 11 10 10 10, whic becomes a ECL 15 PC when it get PC ability and gear, you just have to look on the thread where they similate combats between level 9 PC with magic gear versus level 15 PC without to understand that magic gear and better abilities affect CR.


I agree - why move the mountain to Mohammed? Instead of tearing down the perfectly workable CR system and making your system incompatible, why don't you change one small aspect of epic XP?

You have to choose, wether you prefer level 108 PC that gain nothing from defeating a CR100 monster, or to differentiate CR and ECL. Exteding the table so that PC can gain Xp from monster several CR under or above them is quickly impossible (lack of space on the book).
 

tjasamcarl, put to the sword...again.

Hello tjasamcarl mate! :)

I thought you knew better than to debate with me after last time!? Guess not! ;)

tjasamcarl said:
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.

I see you have started early with referencing comments out of context! :)

My comment was addressing the Epic Challenge Ratings that myself and CRGreathouse were discussing, not the core CR mechanic. No doubt that bit of evidence passed you by. :rolleyes:

tjasamcarl said:
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'...

Fantastic mate! :D

Keep up with the ad hominem attacks, thats your only hope - since we both know you'll never come up with a legitamate point regarding my systems mechanics!

Obviously the Solars CR is wildly incorrect, as are certain dragons. Obviously at a certain point going by ECL; CR 'x+4' is not equal to x4 CR 'x'. These are facts! But feel free to ignore them further.

tjasamcarl said:
UKs CR/Ecl system does not accuratly assess the challenge a party will face given the range of variation in class levels and monsters. Neither does Wotcs... Both are just generalizations..

True to a point. But as I mentioned last week; the secret to CRs is not being right, but rather not being wrong!

Since you usually fail to grasp the obvious, that means you don't have to be totally accurate, just don't be totally inaccurate (to the point where the mistake will cause ingame problems).

tjasamcarl said:
The difference is UK is framing his as being accurate in all situations, Wotc never did.

Totally misleading and another ad hominem attack in one sentence. Kudos mate! :)

tjasamcarl said:
To that effect Wotc made a judgment about under what class/level circumstances to balance monsters in order to determine CR, choosing the min/max route that is probably the most common and allows dms to assess the EL in the light of this assumption. UK on the other hand is screeching about the valildity of an article thrown together for a free webzine...

Look closely everyone how tjasamcarl makes a last ditch attempt to close the argument by appealing to authority...

Instead of addressing my actual mechanics in my article, he denounces the credibility of Asgard magazine! Essentially what hes trying to say is that its not what you know, but who you know! According to him, actual content is irrelevant. Fortunately I (and I'm sure most others here) see his 'Strawman' attacks as for what they are.

Stop by anytime tjasamcarl mate - I'm here all week! :p

Never before was my sig. more appropriate!
 



Re: *chuckle*

Hello there! :)

Femerus the Gnecro said:
...maybe you should change it to "You address egotism... tread carefully"

:)

:D

Hey! Tjasamcarl was rude enough to warrant the Immortal Smackdown! :p

After laying a smackdown I should be allowed at least one quip to lighten the mood! ;)
 

Hey Nightfall mate! :)

Nightfall said:
Krusty mate, since we are talking CRs and ELCS, I have a monster I want you to see. Check your email ASAP.

I just checked my email mate - no sign of your missive?

Have you sent it to me yet?
 

Remove ads

Top