SRD Additions

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Russ mate!

Feel free to debate the topic at hand, but take the personal attacks elsewhere, please, folks. I don't want to have to close this thread because it's a cool discussion.

Absolutely!

 

[Darkness]

Re: Not to throw fire onto this but.....

I would argue that the flaw with all of these systems is that this assumption is incorrect. And no matter how hard one might wish it were true, it isn't. Is a 10th-level Wizard/10th-level Cleric equivalent to a 20th-level Wizard or a 20th-level Cleric? I doubt it. He may have access to almost any 5th-level or lower spell, but the 20th-level character has access to 9th leve spells. It is no contest.

In a heads-on, no-holds-barred battle between the two, the Wiz20 (or Clr20) probably has quite an advantage, yes...

The 10/10 wizard/cleric probably losses to a 16th level Wizard in an average combat.

If both are PCs (or both are NPCs), this is a bit doubtful (and if both aren't NPCs / PCs, they aren't meant to be equal anyway ): A 16th-level PC has around 260,000 gp (NPC: 77,000) in gear, while a 20th-level PC has 760,000 gp (NPC: 220,000) in gear - which is about three times as much.
Everything considered, the 10th/10th-level character is much more flexible than his lower-level, single-classed opponent - both because of his access to arcane and divine spells, and because of his vastly superior equipment. And that could - and usually will - very well make the difference between the two.

I think it's easier to just accept the fact that monster characters require ad hoc balance chosen by the DM just like it did in every other edition of D&D ...

With that, I agree...

... and maybe we can get it right when 4th ed comes out in (based on the standard schedule) 9-10 years.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Not to throw fire onto this but.....

Hi there!

I would argue that the flaw with all of these systems is that this assumption is incorrect.

In part I agree with you. But as I mentioned with Challenge Ratings in general; you don't have to be totally accurate - just as long as you're not totally inaccurate!

And no matter how hard one might wish it were true, it isn't. Is a 10th-level Wizard/10th-level Cleric equivalent to a 20th-level Wizard or a 20th-level Cleric? I doubt it.

There is definately a certain weightiness brought to bear with having the most powerful spells at your disposal. But I think this is part of the reason why a lot of emphasis (in 3rd Ed.) is placed on magic items.

What about a 10th-level Fighter/10th-level Cleric with a Vorpal Sword; Helm of Teleportation and a Ring of Spell Turning.

What about a 15th-level Rogue/5th-level Wizard with a Rod of Absorption; Necklace of Fireballs and a Ring of Three Wishes.

What about a 20th-level Ranger with a Ring of Air Elemental Command; a +5 Composite Longbow and some Human Slaying Arrows.

I don't think you can give a high-level single class spellcaster carte blanche to to defeat any other class of the same level. Other classes have strengths too (bolstered by magic items) that they will work to.

Thats not to say that characters will always be balanced; far from it, but simply that thats our best common denominator.

He may have access to almost any 5th-level or lower spell, but the 20th-level character has access to 9th leve spells. It is no contest. The 10/10 wizard/cleric probably losses to a 16th level Wizard in an average combat.

I wasn't aware there was such a thing as 'an average combat'!?

I think it's easier to just accept the fact that monster characters require ad hoc balance chosen by the DM just like it did in every other edition of D&D and maybe we can get it right when 4th ed comes out in (based on the standard schedule) 9-10 years.

I don't agree. I think we can have a mechanism to determine this.

I have presented one such solution. Is it perfect - no. But then Challenge Ratings by their very nature are not precise. So the question should not be "is it perfect?", but rather "does it work?" So far, all the feedback I have received from people using this system say that it does work.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Firstly, I didn't address 'LA'. ECL means Effective Character Level.

If ECL is different for Monster Races/Templates used as PCs (as Monte suggests, and I agree with) then thats something that should be detailed at the appropriate juncture.

Well, there's our problem - you are using your own definition of ECL. Would you explain to me what you mean? Here's what I mean; hopefully, you can see where I was coming from:

Drow have a LA of 2. Their CR is 1 when they have a single NPC class, character level if they have more than one level, at least one of which is an NPC class, or character level + 1 if they have entirely PC classes.

Therefore, a PC drow Clr9 is ECL 11 and an NPC drow Clr9 is CR 10.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Not exactly.

Since what I call ECL 34-111 represents 34th-111th-level characters.

Whereas to you CR27-43 means levels 27th-43rd.

Well, this is just a matter of the XP you give out for fighting NPCs (rather than 'monsters'). Either you're giving out way too much XP for weak NPCs, or the power curve is severely watered down. Which is harder: a group of 19th-20th level charaters fighting a vrock, or a group of 60th level characters fighting a 34th level character? If the characters have gained so little power that a character 26 levels lower, and with *NPC* equipment of 26 lower levels (about 100 times less equipment under ELH-style wealth, or about 1000 times less under extrapolated core rules), is still a noticable challenge (not hard, but noticable), they're really weak!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello mate!

Well, there's our problem - you are using your own definition of ECL. Would you explain to me what you mean?

To me a Monsters ECL is equal to how many character class levels its roughly balanced against.

By contrast CR is used to determine the level of challenge a situation/monsters (etc.) represents. Hopefully with the focus on CR 'X+4' = x4 CR 'x'

Here's what I mean; hopefully, you can see where I was coming from:

Drow have a LA of 2. Their CR is 1 when they have a single NPC class, character level if they have more than one level, at least one of which is an NPC class, or character level + 1 if they have entirely PC classes.

Therefore, a PC drow Clr9 is ECL 11 and an NPC drow Clr9 is CR 10.

Yes I know what you mean and I agree. But remember I said that you won't have a problem as long as a CR isn't wildly innaccurate!

Equally I said that such a difference will have negligable effect on my rules the higher you ascend!

An ECL difference of 1 or 2 could prove a deciding factor in a very low level game, but dealing with Epic Levels (as my system does) its not going to be a pertinent factor. In fact thats the whole crux of my system - I'm trying to show that the higher you ascend the less ECL plays a factor in determining CR.

Well, this is just a matter of the XP you give out for fighting NPCs (rather than 'monsters'). Either you're giving out way too much XP for weak NPCs, or the power curve is severely watered down.

No. What it represents is a far more legitamate threat range than the current mechanic where a character supposedly can't be defeated by one 9 levels lower, nor defeat one 9 levels higher - I already proved this was incorrect - remember the Zeus test!?

Which is harder: a group of 19th-20th level charaters fighting a vrock, or a group of 60th level characters fighting a 34th level character?

The ratio of success/defeat should be approximately the same.

A 50/50 contest with x4 60th-level characters would require x64 34th-level characters.

A 50/50 contest with x4 20th-level characters would require x64 Vrocks.

If the characters have gained so little power that a character 26 levels lower, and with *NPC* equipment of 26 lower levels (about 100 times less equipment under ELH-style wealth, or about 1000 times less under extrapolated core rules), is still a noticable challenge (not hard, but noticable), they're really weak!

What you are failing to address is the preponderance of instant kill/victory - items; spells; feats and abilities that dominate Epic Level gaming. Additionally you have the decrease in the percentage of hit point improvement. Capping of base attacks. etc.

 

[Umbran]

Re: Not to throw fire onto this but.....

I would argue that the flaw with all of these systems is that this assumption is incorrect. And no matter how hard one might wish it were true, it isn't. Is a 10th-level Wizard/10th-level Cleric equivalent to a 20th-level Wizard or a 20th-level Cleric?

It depends on what you mean by "equivalent".

I think folks tend to misuse the notion of "balance" among the PC classes. There's few credible arguments that a fighter shouldn't be able to wipe the floor with a bard of equal level in a knock-down drag-out fight. Or that a 20th level wizard won't turn a 20th level barbarian to so much fine mist at range.

To say that PC classes are balanced is to say that, over the course of an adventure or campaign, people will find all classes equally useful and effective overall. Not just over combat. Some pretty good workwas done to make sure everyone would be effective in a fight, but that doesn't mean one expects the rogue to go toe-to-toe with the barbarian.

So, if you're thinking about CR purely in terms of simple battle, there's some definite problems - some classes only shine in certain contexts. The notion of classes being equivalent only holds over the broad view of many different kinds of encounters.

 

[CRGreathouse]

An ECL difference of 1 or 2 could prove a deciding factor in a very low level game, but dealing with Epic Levels (as my system does) its not going to be a pertinent factor. In fact thats the whole crux of my system - I'm trying to show that the higher you ascend the less ECL plays a factor in determining CR.

So a 60th-level drow's SR 71 is 'negligable'? Some aspects don't matter any more (gnome innate spells), but some do. Remember, too, that hit points increase quadratically, not linearly.

The ratio of success/defeat should be approximately the same.

A 50/50 contest with x4 60th-level characters would require x64 34th-level characters.

A 50/50 contest with x4 20th-level characters would require x64 Vrocks.



What you are failing to address is the preponderance of instant kill/victory - items; spells; feats and abilities that dominate Epic Level gaming. Additionally you have the decrease in the percentage of hit point improvement. Capping of base attacks. etc.

No, I'm looking at just that - instakill. With that much level spread, the best the lower-level character could do is waste some resources. At worest, he/she/it couldn't even do that.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello mate!

...I thought we had put all this to bed!?

So a 60th-level drow's SR 71 is 'negligable'?

Yes.

A drows SR may matter to a degree but at high level the effect is still going to be negligable.

Some aspects don't matter any more (gnome innate spells), but some do.

Some matter more than others but there are no really unbalancing advantages that I have come across!(?)

The secret is simply setting a good AL.

Remember, too, that hit points increase quadratically, not linearly.

True, but the effect of gaining a certain amount of hp/level is going to be negligable when you have hit points measured in hundreds.

No, I'm looking at just that - instakill. With that much level spread, the best the lower-level character could do is waste some resources. At worest, he/she/it couldn't even do that.

How is this different from the level spread examples I gave? A challenge Rating at -8 gives the opponent virtually no chance of success, hence thats the minimum suggested to 'challenge' the PCs.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Hey, U_K!

How is this different from the level spread examples I gave? A challenge Rating at -8 gives the opponent virtually no chance of success, hence thats the minimum suggested to 'challenge' the PCs.

Well, perhaps. A better comparison would be CR -4, which is not certain with the standard system, but certain (or all but) with yours.