Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Flamestrike" data-source="post: 8006749" data-attributes="member: 6788736">No, that's not what Im saying. Im saying the formula of:''When making this calculation, don’t count any monsters whose challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating of the other monsters in the group unless you think the weak monsters significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter.''Leads to some ridiculous results.Do you have 20 Kobolds and 1 CR 5 monster? You multiply XP by x 1 to determine difficulty because Kobolds CR 1/8 is 'significantly below the CR' of the CR 5 monster (by a factor of 40). We effectively ignore the Kobolds when determining multiplication for multiple monsters because the much more powerful CR 5 monster is in the encounter.Do you have 20 Kobolds and 1 CR 2 monster? You multiply the XP by x 4 to determine difficulty because those Kobold CRs are not significantly below the threshold of CR 2. Suddenly we are factoring the Kobolds back into the multiplication stage for multiple monsters, and increasing that multiplier even though we reduced the threat of the bigger scarier monster!It's absurd.I find the maths works better when the above formula is used to compare the weaker 'mook' monsters to the average level of the PCs (and not compared to the CR of other monsters in the encounter).If the mooks are significantly lower in CR than the average level of the PCs, then we dont count them for multiplication purposes. If not, they get counted.It makes more sense, avoids a lot of absurdities, and leads to much more balanced results overall.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Flamestrike, post: 8006749, member: 6788736"] No, that's not what Im saying. Im saying the formula of: ''When making this calculation, [I][U]don’t count any monsters whose challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating [B]of the other monsters in the group[/B][/U] [/I]unless you think the weak monsters significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter.'' Leads to some ridiculous results. Do you have 20 Kobolds [B]and [/B]1 CR 5 monster? You multiply XP by x 1 to determine difficulty because Kobolds CR 1/8 is 'significantly below the CR' of the CR 5 monster (by a factor of 40). We effectively ignore the Kobolds when determining multiplication for multiple monsters because the much more powerful CR 5 monster is in the encounter. Do you have 20 Kobolds [B]and [/B]1 CR 2 monster? You multiply the XP by x 4 to determine difficulty because those Kobold CRs are not significantly below the threshold of CR 2. Suddenly we are factoring the Kobolds back into the multiplication stage for multiple monsters, and [B]increasing [/B]that multiplier even though we [B]reduced [/B]the threat of the bigger scarier monster! It's absurd. I find the maths works better when the above formula is used to compare the weaker 'mook' monsters to the average level of the PCs (and not compared to the CR of other monsters in the encounter). If the mooks are significantly lower in CR than the average level of the PCs, then we dont count them for multiplication purposes. If not, they get counted. It makes more sense, avoids a lot of absurdities, and leads to much more balanced results overall. [/QUOTE]

Verification