Subtle Brilliance...

[BryonD]

The only proof of this tool is through play, and YES it plays well. Bryon, I hate to default to this defense again (because you know I love the numbers as much as you do-- enough to pay to see them work-- but at some point you just gotta go with the T-LAR method and play the game.
Wulf

I accept this.
And, sincerely, my knowledge of how "in" to this system you are makes me believe that you would agree it is worth on-going re-assessment and refinement.

I totally understand the issues with CL=CR and such, and I am willing to accept that as part of the core mechanics that must then be built upon.

Hell, a feat = +0.2 CR assumes balance in feats. Yeah, right......

And I am certain you will let my Strong Character move 2 points from INT and CHR each over to STR because that has no impact on CR, right..... ?

So I'm not trying to dodge GM responsibility.

But, ability A should have the same cost every time.
From page 182 "Challenge Rating (CR) is a measure of absolute power, ..."
As I see it, the system builds on that declaration and it is not a good thing to undercut it.

 

[Cheiromancer]

UK's breakdown of character levels is enough for the purpose of my argument. I don't want to build a new character class- I just want to show that all the CR numbers in UK's system are somewhat inflated, and that treating 1 CL = 1 CR (with typical ability scores) is approximately the same as multiplying all CRs by 2/3.

It's like currency conversion. If you are a Canadian and want to compare your purchasing power with that of an American friend, you need to multiply your salary by the appropriate amount (awfully close to 2/3 ), and do the same thing to the prices of things you buy with Canadian dollars. I just regard UK's CRs as being a different currency than the core CRs.

Just going to correct you quickly though this isn't a discussion I really want to go down. Higher level characters DON'T have a higher point buy as additional ability scores from advancement (4th, 8th, etc.) is already factored in.

That's a good point- I apologize if I misled anyone into thinking that UK ignored that in his analysis. It's just that my group has the habit of using higher point buys when we are playing higher level, more "epic" campaigns. That's before adding the +1/4 levels bonus. When we are playing low level campaigns we are more stingy with the point buy. Character mortality (and players' desire for a change) is such that very few make it from 1st to 10th level; most start out somewhere along the way, and the higher they start, the more points they generally get. That's all I was referring to.

Bryon, I hate to default to this defense again (because you know I love the numbers as much as you do-- enough to pay to see them work-- but at some point you just gotta go with the T-LAR method and play the game.

What does T-LAR stand for? I assume it is the method we are using, but no acronym comes to mind. Oh, and this is Chi-Rho talking.

And I'm happy with the 2/3 rule, so there is no need for a defense of it. It fits with the core rules. It keeps CL=CR better than UK's rule does. And in extraordinary cases I could always do a UK-style analysis using his "currency."

Example: I show you two creatures that are CR6 and CR8. One or both may be characters or monsters, but I'm not telling. I know exactly what their stats are, so I know the "true" odds of a fair fight. Because you have added uncertainty into CR, you can not predict success off of these CRs.

If you calculated the CR of a 6th level character in UK's system, it would likely be around CR 9; the CR of an 8th level character would likely be CR 11 or CR 12. In other words, Grim Tales (pretty much) multiplies everything by 2/3; not just the monsters. By taking 1 CL= 1 CR and disregarding UK's "silver rule" (the adjustment for the calculation that 1 CL = 1.15 CR) and player character ability scores, you've already discounted character levels. To discount monster CRs in (approximately) the same ratio you multiply by 2/3.

If you like you could calculate player CRs the way UK does- then you wouldn't have to multiply the CRs by 2/3. But you would have to multiply the CRs of core monsters by 1.5 to make things match up. The improvement in accuracy would be only a few percent until you get to quite high levels.

And, really, a given encounter will never go quite as the calculations indicate. Part of a monster's CR is due to its saving throws, spell resistance and DR; if the pary casts no spells at it, and has weapons that overcome its DR, then those factors really didn't make the encounter that much more difficult. The predicted difficulty is a little more than the actual difficulty. These differences average out, and end up not amounting to much. The approximations involved in the 2/3 rule usually don't amount ot much either.

 

[BryonD]

If you calculated the CR of a 6th level character in UK's system, it would likely be around CR 9; the CR of an 8th level character would likely be CR 11 or CR 12. In other words, Grim Tales (pretty much) multiplies everything by 2/3; not just the monsters.

I did not say 6 and 8 were their levels. Those are their final calculated CRs.

In GT Monsters get a 2/3 multiplier, but characters do not (except for character levels).

GT page 167: "Monsters (but not characters) apply a final multiplier of 2/3 to their design factors."

This means that without knowing whether the creature is a monster or character, you can not make a connection between sum of abilities and final CR.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It's just that my group has the habit of using higher point buys when we are playing higher level, more "epic" campaigns.

Well, then, I'd hardly use that as a basis for an argument that "most high level games use higher point buy."

What does T-LAR stand for?

Tee hee. I love it when people ask me that.

TLAR: "That Looks About Right."

Wulf

 

[S'mon]

Looking at GT, surely GT-class PCs with little or no magic are much _weaker_ than standard D&D PCs with standard magic & wealth? I'd think that a CR 10 Monster Manual creature _would_ be roughly a fair fight for level 15 GT PCs, ie might be best not to do that x2/3 multiplication for GT play, better to multiply MM by x1.5...

 

[S'mon]

BTW I think UK's 1.5-higher CRs are probably accurate when compared to the actual CR of NPCs, eg the 25-point NPCs in the 3.0 DMG. A single 18th level 25-point DMG fighter with NPC-wealth is usually no more a challenge than the typical CR-12 Monster Manual critter, in my experience.

 

[BryonD]

Looking at GT, surely GT-class PCs with little or no magic are much _weaker_ than standard D&D PCs with standard magic & wealth? I'd think that a CR 10 Monster Manual creature _would_ be roughly a fair fight for level 15 GT PCs, ie might be best not to do that x2/3 multiplication for GT play, better to multiply MM by x1.5...

I disagree that the classes are weaker than D&D classes. GT classes still get plenty of special abilities of their own.

Wealth is a separate matter. 1 CL = 1 CR is a simplification. The actual formula is 1 CL = 0.8 CR and 1 Class level of gear = 0.2 CR. So if you had a 10th level GT character, it is very possible that this character would have significantly less gear than a fully equipped L10 D&D character. A true low magic setting 10th level character may have nothing more than a collection of mastercraft weapons and armor, probably worth a total of 2nd or 3rd level D&D gear.

So a standard equiped D&D L10 would be CR10.
The L10 GT char would be 0.8*10 + 0.2*3 = CR8.6 (rounded down to 8)
That would put the odds in the area of 4 to 1 in the favor of the D&D character.

So classes abilities work out ok, and differences in gear are already built into the equation.

 

[BryonD]

BTW I think UK's 1.5-higher CRs are probably accurate when compared to the actual CR of NPCs, eg the 25-point NPCs in the 3.0 DMG. A single 18th level 25-point DMG fighter with NPC-wealth is usually no more a challenge than the typical CR-12 Monster Manual critter, in my experience.

In GT this character would be CR16. NPC gear is rated lower than PC gear for obvious reasons.
However, I think that NPC gear cost-effectiveness falls off moreso as you get into higher levels. This is a place where a linear scale (0.125 CR/ NPC gear level) doesn't do a REALLY ggod job. For higher level characters with NPC gear, I wouldn't balk at knocking another 1 CR off.

CR15 (EL16) is still greater than CR12 (EL15), but honestly, a party of 4 fully equipped L18 characters (EL21) are going to destroy either one so easily that you won't see the difference.

 

[S'mon]

NPC gear - I agree; a 25PB Fighter-4 NPC w standard NPC gear is _deadly_ to 3rd-level PCs; a 20th level 25PB NPC Fighter w NPC gear is trivial to 19th level PCs.

 

[BryonD]

I understand your point.

I like to get double duty out of the CR calculations (a predictor of success and a determinant in XP awards) and I can certainly see how you could consider that "wrong."

You could, instead, maintain two seperate totals: a character's CR from Character Level, and a separate total of additional CR.

Hey Wulf,

Been thinking about this some more and I believe I may have come to a reconciliation.

Assumptions:
Classes are the primary domain of characters
Special Abilities are the primary domain of monsters
Using the 2/3 rule, a monster's final calculated CR will be a 50/50 fight with a character who has only class levels and the same CR.



Now, if a character adds on some special abilities, he pays a 50% premium on the price for these abilities. As you pointed out before, the abilities tend to be cheap and that premium results in a minimal to even negligible difference. However, if the character takes a large number of special abilities he starts to pay a higher "CR price" for it. In effect he is straying into the monster domain and must pay for this option.

The result is that, for a character with a significant value of special abilities, the math is actually wrong. His CR is over-rated. And thus a monster that the system claims is a 50/50 match against this character, acutally has the character slightly (or more) outgunned.

Which was my sticking point. The math is wrong.

HOWEVER
This is a feature, not a bug.
In effect it just gives the character fewer XP for his encounters. (It could lead an inexperienced GM to over threatened a party, but that is a small threat) So, ultimately, this ends up be exactly like the multi-class XP penalty from D&D.
A character with a lot of special abilities may very well end up needing 20 "standard" encounters to level up, instead of the target 13.33.
GT encourages characters to be "grim", not lathered up with fancy powers. This is the stick that provides that encouragement.

IF I wanted to run a game where more special abilities were typical. Such as a Darwin's World Game using the GT core, where lots of mutants are common, then the solution would be to cost characters out as monsters. Classes still cost the same, but abilities scale evenly with classes, no pseudo-multi-classing penalty.

Sound right to you?