Subtle Brilliance...

[BryonD]

A quick question about adding up EL's:

Suppose I have a 4th level character (assume standard equipment, so CR 4) vs another 4th level character and his 4 1st level flunkies.

The lone character is EL 9. The group is total CR 8, which means EL 13, -4 for 5 characters; also EL 9. That hardly seems right.

What (if anything) am I doing wrong?

My take:
The title of Table 14-2 is EL adjustement for multiple combatants. But the implied title is EL adjstements for multiple relevant combatants. Deciding where the break point is for a relevant combatant can be tricky, but if the bring the EL down, then it is a safe bet that they are not relevant.


Number crunching geek analysis:
I've played with the math and found that log base2 of the (CR*num) minus log base2 of num is a good baseline. (Or in cases of huge parties, the absolute value of this result.) A subgroups value needs to be within 1.25 of the "strongest" subgroup to be mathematically relevant. The nature of the formulas makes the threshold vary some. It is higher at very low EL and quickly goes to a ~1.25 asymptote as EL goes up.
This isn't precision math, it is "good enough" modeling analysis.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

So are you saying that the druid isn't really balanced as is, including animal companion?

We can break a lot of classes down at any given level and they won't seem "balanced." The CR1 mage has very little chance against the CR1 cleric or fighter.

I just like to consistently mention animal companions (and, yes, cohorts) as one of the things the system can track, because, yes, the animal companion can be too valuable at low levels and pull too much weight. It makes the druid as powerful as two (or more) men.

If you forced me to split hairs, I'd say I think it's a little different from the fighter's feats because the animal companion is an individual combatant.

However, the other point you have made is that you are trying to build a better system that is still true to core.

It can't always be true to core if your intent is to make it better than core.

I personally think it's "better" to track each individual combatant separately.

But I think the druid thing opens the door to "where do you draw the line?" questions.

As above-- track each combatant. It's a pretty distinct line.

Though I fully understand the devil's advocate position-- I've fought my share of 1 CL = 1 CR battles (of which I think this is a tangent).

Wulf

 

[BryonD]

Fair enough.

The counter is that if you track the companion as a distinct combatant, then you have sliced off a chunk of the druid's core abilities. Thus, the debate becomes: The druid7's animal companion is CRX, but is the druid7, not counting the companion, still CR7?

If the companion is to strong early and to weak late, is there a sweet spot? At that point where it is "just right" then the total power must be Druid combatant level squared (using Chi Rho for simplicity of expression). But if Druid combatant CR = druid level AND animal combatant CR = CR (>0) then this condition can not ever be true.

If you agree that druid CR < druid level then power equal (druid CR)^2 + (animal CR)^2. And you can measure balance by how power compares to (druid level)^2.

However, if you disagree, then power = (druid level)^2 + (animal CR)^2, which must always be
> (druid level)^2. Thus, implicitly stating that the druid, with animal companion included, is overpowered to some degree at all levels. Thus, it is "broken". When (animal CR)^2/(druid level)^2 >> 1 (low levels), it is highly overpowered and when (animal CR)^2/(druid level)^2 <<1 then it is virtually balanced, but still slightly more powerful.

 

[DonAdam]

Ok, cool. I know that its only a few fringe cases where it matters, but I guess I'll use the document instead. I prefer the charts myself, but I'm putting together rules for a sort of miniature living campaign for the people at my university, and either version is far superior to the core rules for determining how much parties can handle since I have to write GM guidelines.

Nonetheless, many thanks for the excellent work. At first when I saw the book I was underwhelmed because there wasn't that much "new" (relative to the size). Then I realized that, by picking and choosing from the best sources and modifying here and there that what you've created is essentially the tightest (mechanically) package of rules that I've seen in d20. It's become the first reference I turn to for any rules decisions for games; it's not always the one I end up siding with, but it is always the first I check. Bravo.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Thus, implicitly stating that the druid, with animal companion included, is overpowered to some degree at all levels.

There's nothing wrong with stating it explicitly; I don't think it's exposing a flaw, and it's in agreement with UK's nitty-gritties. He rates the druid at 1.2406 CR per level, second behind only the cleric at 1.3196. (The rogue trails the pack at 1.09.)

Does this information entice me to use his Silver Rule to balance out the built in PC advantage compared to monster CRs? Nope.

Does this information encourage me to abandon 1 CL = 1 CR and to adopt a standard specific to each class? Nope.

Does it encourage me to move in any way towards a more granular (and supposedly accurate) accounting of PC abilities? Not in the slightest.

But it does provide a bit of hard crunch to back up my opinion, formed simply through lots of anecdotal experience, that it might be better to track animal companions as separate combatants.

One might note that neither animal companions (druid or paladin) nor familiars nor Leadership made it into Grim Tales as either feats or talents. That wasn't by accident. I don't believe that individual creatures should be lumped under the abilities of a "master," not in terms of their participation in combat nor even in terms of assuming their loyalty. I think in all such cases they should be removed from "assumed" as class abilities and returned to the realm of good role-playing.


Wulf

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

What you've created is essentially the tightest (mechanically) package of rules that I've seen in d20. It's become the first reference I turn to for any rules decisions for games; it's not always the one I end up siding with, but it is always the first I check. Bravo.

Man, that feels great. Makes a fantastic tagline...

Wulf

 

[BryonD]

There's nothing wrong with stating it explicitly; I don't think it's exposing a flaw, and it's in agreement with UK's nitty-gritties. He rates the druid at 1.2406 CR per level, second behind only the cleric at 1.3196. (The rogue trails the pack at 1.09.)

<SNIP>

One might note that neither animal companions (druid or paladin) nor familiars nor Leadership made it into Grim Tales as either feats or talents. That wasn't by accident. I don't believe that individual creatures should be lumped under the abilities of a "master," not in terms of their participation in combat nor even in terms of assuming their loyalty. I think in all such cases they should be removed from "assumed" as class abilities and returned to the realm of good role-playing.


Wulf

Well....

All I can say now is: Good answer.

I guess there is a caveat that one should use caution and judgement when applying this system directly over to D&D. But that was already an understood.

 

[ddougan]

Wulf,

First of all, congrats on an excellent product - after hearing all the positive comments and reviews on Enworld, I grabbed a copy off Amazon (no local game store here ... everything I buy for RPG has to come off the web!).

Secondly, just a quick question - any ideas for when the Vehicle Combat Chart Web Enhacement (mentioned on p161) will be available on the BadAxe website?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Secondly, just a quick question - any ideas for when the Vehicle Combat Chart Web Enhacement (mentioned on p161) will be available on the BadAxe website?

I was wondering when someone would get around to asking that...

It's a victim of perfectionism at the moment-- I will make it a priority to put it up no matter how I feel about the layout. (When you do get it, feel free to comment, I can always update the sheet with anything you think is missing.)


Wulf

 

[Snoweel]

One might note that neither animal companions (druid or paladin) nor familiars nor Leadership made it into Grim Tales as either feats or talents. That wasn't by accident. I don't believe that individual creatures should be lumped under the abilities of a "master," not in terms of their participation in combat nor even in terms of assuming their loyalty. I think in all such cases they should be removed from "assumed" as class abilities and returned to the realm of good role-playing.

Sold.