Upper Krust, where are you? [Immortal's Handbook]

[Anubis]

For the BAB/EAB progression, it's simple: It adds another unneccessary rule.

As for Upper Krust's system, I do think he's going too far, I just add one CR point at 2nd level, and start +2 levels = 1 CR after 18th level.

(It's logical, at 2nd level, all classes double hit points, add +5% to hit, +5% to skills, along with other bonuses so long as its not a commoner. With equipment factored in, level 2 = CR 3)

Maybe unnecessary, but not complicated. After Level 20, you get EAB every odd level and a save bonus every even level (or it may be the other way around). This is in place to keep all the classes roughly even, plain and simple, and I agree with that idea. Just as ECL changes after Level 20, so too must BAB and saves, otherwise BAB and weak saves QUICKLY become unbalanced to the point where they're worthless. A Level 50 wizard with average Con would have a Fort save of MAYBE +28 with a Cloak of Resistance +12. Saves at that level will have DCs on average of 45-55, making most such saves IMPOSSIBLE for the wizard to make. That's instant death in many cases.

Besdies, that's not the part I asked for proof of. I'm asking how is the core system broken at lower levels? NO CHANGES ARE NECESSARY AT LOWER LEVELS.

 

[Xeriar]

Maybe unnecessary, but not complicated. After Level 20, you get EAB every odd level and a save bonus every even level (or it may be the other way around). This is in place to keep all the classes roughly even, plain and simple, and I agree with that idea. Just as ECL changes after Level 20, so too must BAB and saves, otherwise BAB and weak saves QUICKLY become unbalanced to the point where they're worthless. A Level 50 wizard with average Con would have a Fort save of MAYBE +28 with a Cloak of Resistance +12. Saves at that level will have DCs on average of 45-55, making most such saves IMPOSSIBLE for the wizard to make. That's instant death in many cases.

Besdies, that's not the part I asked for proof of. I'm asking how is the core system broken at lower levels? NO CHANGES ARE NECESSARY AT LOWER LEVELS.

I think what Upper Krust is trying to do is flesh out just what the various 'monster classes' mean, without changing them the same way that the ELH changed the BAB progression for core classes. These can provide an ECL template based directly off of HD, and make the ECL judgment much easier on its own merit.

It's easy enough to include a less powerful tensor's transformation varient usable by all spellcasting classes (say 6th level Bard/Psychic Warrior/Sorcerer/Wizard, 7th level Cleric/Druid) that increases effective BAB by 1 per 4 character levels, without causing madness, for a short duration.

Monks have their own insane set of advantages, and the Psion, Sorcerer, and Wizard ignore two major types of AC when making attack roles anyway, usually, and Rogues get their flat-footed shtick.

As for your last sentance, the jump in power between level 1 and level 2 is pretty drastic. Make two identicle level 1 characters, and one third level character advanced from the other two. The First-levellers are not going to be winning 50% of the time.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya there, buddy-boy!!!!!!! (Hoo-hoo-hoo-hooooo!!!)

Hey Bjorn mate!

Hope you are keeping well!?

You have Seraphim, right? Are ya gonna do Cherubim and everything else as well?

Yes.

If you release it as a pdf and then as an actual book, willone cost more than the other?

Seemingly pdfs generally cost less than equal size printed material.

You keep saying it wil be priced like a book of similar size or sumpin' like that. Exactly what size would that be?

Depends on how many pdfs the book comprises. It could be anything from four to six, depending on certain materials that could be added.

 

[Anubis]

As for your last sentance, the jump in power between level 1 and level 2 is pretty drastic. Make two identicle level 1 characters, and one third level character advanced from the other two. The First-levellers are not going to be winning 50% of the time.

Nor should they. How many times do I have to say it? CR IS NOT DECIDED BY COMPARING TWO CHARACTERS OF EQUAL POWER!

By the rules:

A Level 3 character is CR 3. That makes him or her a "very difficult" challenge for a PARTY of FOUR Level 1 characters. "Very Difficult" is *defined*, *IN THE DMG*, as "One PC might very well die. The Encounter Level is higher than the average party level. This sort of encounter may be more dangerous than an overpowering one, because it's not immediately obvious to the players that the PCs should flee. That's for FOUR Level 1 characters. TWO Level 1 character won't stand even a 10% chance of winning, IF THAT.

That makes your argument invalid, as you did not argue by the rules as-is. I'm saying that the rules, as they are, work. Of course some of the CRs for monsters need adjusting, as no the ECLs for NPC classes. I have never stated otherwise. For the core rules, however, regarding PCs, NO CHANGE IS NEEDED. A Level 1 character is not ECL 2, nor is a Level 2 character ECL 4. In other words, UK is ignoring every basic definition in the core rules.

He says a Level 1 PC is ECL 2 . . . Where does ECL come from? IT IS BASED AROUND PC LEVELS! That means the two forms contradict each other! You're changing the definition itself, then comparing it to the old definition! That doesn't work! Level 1 is ECL 1, plain and simple. You judge the monsters *compared to PCs*, because THAT is the standard by which ECL is derived.

No one has been able to come up with PROOF that the core rules don't work! Where's the proof? By gaming and testing this stuff IN PLAY, I can assure everyone that the core rules work through Level 20, even is there are errors in how some monsters are judged. The core of the system, however, has never had a problem under Level 20.

 

[Xeriar]

CR IS NOT DECIDED BY COMPARING TWO CHARACTERS OF EQUAL POWER!

What are you talking about? CR is supposed to give a relative idea of a character's power. If CRs are equal, the characters should be, all things considered, relatively equal in power.

If you decide that this isn't applicable, then what is the point of CR?

TWO Level 1 character won't stand even a 10% chance of winning, IF THAT.

Okay, you acknowledge this.

Two level three characters have more than a 10% chance of dealing with a fifth level character.

Is that not also true?

Four level 3 fighters will maul a 5th-level fighter, there is a very good chance that all of the 3rd-level fighters will still be standing in the end.

This is not the case with four first level fighters facing a third level one.

No one has been able to come up with PROOF that the core rules don't work! Where's the proof?

I have never said they don't work, that's UK's jab. I'm simply saying they're a little maligned.

By gaming and testing this stuff IN PLAY, I can assure everyone that the core rules work through Level 20, even is there are errors in how some monsters are judged. The core of the system, however, has never had a problem under Level 20.

Anubis, you have, available at first level, a feat that grants ranged attacks for subdual damage, and flight based on a knowledge score for one feat.

I've played in many, many campaigns, and first level is always the most brutal.

 

[Anubis]

What are you talking about? CR is supposed to give a relative idea of a character's power. If CRs are equal, the characters should be, all things considered, relatively equal in power.

If you decide that this isn't applicable, then what is the point of CR?

The point of CR is determine the challenge of a single monster compared to four characters of that level.

Okay, you acknowledge this.

Two level three characters have more than a 10% chance of dealing with a fifth level character.

Is that not also true?

Possibly. That isn't as clear cut. As levels get higher, the numbers come closer together.

Four level 3 fighters will maul a 5th-level fighter, there is a very good chance that all of the 3rd-level fighters will still be standing in the end.

I'd be willing to bet that at least one of those will die. The Level 5 fighter has a decent chance at winning. Make it a Level 5 Wizard, and the Level 5 Wizard will likely win. However, "very difficult" does NOT mean inpossible. Four Level 2 characters in my campaign recently beat a Level 5 cleric. That battle, however, was BARELY won, and by a lot of luck, with the PCs having LESS than 20 hit points total left, and it took 59 rounds. That's hardly mauling him. By your thoughts, though, the Level 2 party should have mopped the floor with him.

This is not the case with four first level fighters facing a third level one.

Comparing 2 Level 3 Fighters to a Level 5 and then a party of Level 1 characters to a Level 3 makes no sense. Pick a standard and stick with it. The standard is party vs. CR of same level. Also, four Level 1 Fighters would have nearly as good (not quite, but almost) a chance of beating a Level 3 as a PARTY of Level 3 would have of beating a Level 5.

Instead, try comparing it THIS way, as it is the correct way. How would a Level 5 Fighter fare against a Level 5 PARTY? Of course the party would win. By the rules, they should. Now take a look. Does that battle takes up 20% of the party's resources? I bet the answer is yes. Could they take four or five more such encounters? Probably. More than that? Probably not.

You can ONLY compare CR based on a party of THE SAME LEVEL. You're comparing something totally invalid based on what is written. See what I'm saying?

Anubis, you have, available at first level, a feat that grants ranged attacks for subdual damage, and flight based on a knowledge score for one feat.

I've played in many, many campaigns, and first level is always the most brutal.

What does that have to do with anything? Those feats are no more powerful than any other you can get at Level 1. The flight you can POSSIBLY get at Level 1 (Only Monks can, actually, because no one else has that skill as a class skill.) is very poor flight and not sufficient for combat. Everything else is pretty cheap to say the least. No more powerful than any other feats available at Level 1. I balanced them for a reason.

 

[Xeriar]

The point of CR is determine the challenge of a single monster compared to four characters of that level.

How to put this: in order to have a 50:50 chance of defeating superior numbers, one must be x^2 times as 'good' where x is the ratio involved.

This 'law of war' was observed by a British captain in World War II, and backed up in future conflicts and verified in computer simulations.

(War Games, by Thomas B Allen)

To be more specific, there is no strategic difference between 4 characters of CR X and 1 character of CR X+4, if you define doubling to be +2 to CR.

I'd be willing to bet that at least one of those will die. The Level 5 fighter has a decent chance at winning. Make it a Level 5 Wizard, and the Level 5 Wizard will likely win. However, "very difficult" does NOT mean inpossible. Four Level 2 characters in my campaign recently beat a Level 5 cleric. That battle, however, was BARELY won, and by a lot of luck, with the PCs having LESS than 20 hit points total left, and it took 59 rounds. That's hardly mauling him. By your thoughts, though, the Level 2 party should have mopped the floor with him.

Now you're putting words in my mouth.

They had 1 CR on the cleric, no matter if you use my slight adjustment or the original rules. They should have won, if with difficulty, unless the cleric used better tactics.

Comparing 2 Level 3 Fighters to a Level 5 and then a party of Level 1 characters to a Level 3 makes no sense. Pick a standard and stick with it. The standard is party vs. CR of same level.

Any respectable campaign is going to be routinely violating this standard, that's why we're having this discussion. However, you're ignoring my point - 1st-2nd level is a bigger jump in power than any other successive level.

Also, four Level 1 Fighters would have nearly as good (not quite, but almost) a chance of beating a Level 3 as a PARTY of Level 3 would have of beating a Level 5.

You want to try it, honestly? Isn't there a fight club around here somewhere? I'll be the level 3 people.

Not really. Instead, try comparing it THIS way, as it is the correct way. How would a Level 5 Fighter fare against a Level 5 PARTY? Of course the party would win. By the rules, they should. Now take a look. Does that battle takes up 20% of the party's resources? I bet the answer is yes. Could they take four or five more such encounters? Probably. More than that? Probably not.

I have found this to be more situation dependant, than anything.

You can ONLY compare CR based on a party of THE SAME LEVEL. You're comparing something totally invalid based on what is written. See what I'm saying?

That is not CR's purpose. CR's purpose is to evaluate the strength of the individual for EL calculations, so that XP can be rewarded accordingly.

What does that have to do with anything? Those feats are no more powerful than any other you can get at Level 1. The flight you can POSSIBLY get at Level 1 (Only Monks can, actually, because no one else has that skill as a class skill.) is very poor flight and not sufficient for combat. Everything else is pretty cheap to say the least. No more powerful than any other feats available at Level 1. I balanced them for a reason. [/B]

Bards and Wizards don't get all knowledge skills as class skills in your campaign?

It's basically your campaign's version of spellfire. Not that there's a problem with that, but combine with the ability to ignore subdual damage (available with spells) and problems start happening.

Especially as you seem to classify it as something different than magic or psionics, meaning spells don't block/affect/emulate it, etc.

 

[Gez]

What are you talking about? CR is supposed to give a relative idea of a character's power. If CRs are equal, the characters should be, all things considered, relatively equal in power.

If you decide that this isn't applicable, then what is the point of CR?

On this point, I'm with Anubis.

Two monsters of same (accurate !) CRs would have a 50/50 chance of winning against each other if there wasn't things like damage reduction, fly and burrow speed, spell-like abilities...

Let's take some example. I don't have books with me right now, and don't want to read the SRD, so I'll invent things on the fly. Monster A has 3 HD, damage reduction 20/+1, and two quite puny claw attacks at +5, 1d6+2 damage (for example). Monster B has 10 HD, and four attacks at +7, 2d6+8 damage. Let say both are same CR. Let say both are the same CR for adventurer. In a fight, Monster A will nearly always win because monster B has virtually no way of harming monster A (except on a critical hit). In fact, it's even much probable Monster A will have a lower CR than monster B, since PCs will have spells that do force or energy damage, and a cleric casting Magic Weapon on the barbarian's greataxe will be enough to get rid of monster A will minimal casualty, even at 1st level.

Let's take another example. Let say you have a tiger and a shark, and both are at same CR. If the tiger and the shark are fighting each other on land, the tiger will win just by staying out of reach and waiting for the shark to suffocate. If they battle underwater, the tiger will drown. Maybe that's what you would call a 50/50 chance of winning, but actually quite no.

Finally, take an arrowhawk and a (landbound) dinosaur of same CR. Who'll win ? The flying, electrical bolt-hurling elemental ? Or the big maw with short legs ? Now take a dinosaur with a greater CR. Heck, you can even take a mega-advanced pseudonatural T-Rex with max HD, he won't have any way of harming the birdie that'll just be flying overhead, out of reach, and harass the silly critters with electricity rays.

A party of 5th-level adventurer have access to things a CR 5 creature not necessarily have. Trolls, IIRC, are CR 5. At level 5, a party with a wizard will get a fireball, a Melf's Acid Arrow, and a flaming sphere (for example) and that should be more than enough to take care of the troll. Another CR 5 creature (say, an advanced owlbear) will not have access to acid or fire damage, and be out of luck with a troll.


CRs don't represent power; they represent challenge. Heck, that's why they are called Challenge Ratings. Otherwise, they would be called Power Rating.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Elementary my dear Watson

Hi all!

Not so amusingly I actually spent 75 minutes on a reply to this post last night only to have my computer crash on me literally moments before I was finished.

So consider this an abbreviated version mate.

Incidently for the latest article I am considering some changes in terminology - since that seems to be confusing one or two people.

So I will be replacing (what I deemed) ECL with CR, and replacing (what I deemed) CR with EL (Encounter Level).

Except then eventually clerics and wizards and rogues can't hit a damn thing OR fighters will hit everything without fail.

Actually using the Epic Progression doesn't fix this at all.

Even before 30th-level we have a situation whereby one class only ever hits on a '20' while another only misses on a '1'.

Look at the 30th-level NPCs in the ELH.

Sorceror: Atk +15
Druid: Atk +22
Cleric: Atk +26
Rogue: Atk +35
Fighter: Atk +42

If you increase AC to balance with fighter BAB, the clerics, rogues, and wizards will eventually not have any power to hit. If you make AC balance with clerics' and rogues' BAB, fighters will never miss except on a 1.

If anything AC should be balanced towards Rogue/Cleric progression.

However there are a number of problems with Monsters (notably those in the ELH) whose AC only allows party Fighter types to 'fluke' hitting them (On a '20') when they are supposed to be rolling over these monsters using 20-25% of their resources.

That really doesn't bother me . . .

It doesn't bother you that 'pound for pound' Plants and Oozes are actually better skilled than Fighters at fighting!?

Prove that it's broken. Try it.

Okay...lets see what you've got...

Try to prove that a troll is not a suitable challenge for a party of Level 5 characters.

Don't remember saying it wasn't?

I rate the Troll at CR 7. Therefore its EL 12

Party of four 4th-level characters are PCR 4* = PEL** 8

*PCR = Party Challenge Rating which is always the average CR.

**PEL = Party Encounter Level; which is based on the PCR and the number of characters in the party.

An EL difference of PEL+4 = 50/50 encounter.

A Party of four 7th-level characters are PCR 7 = PEL 12

Prove that the XP system is broken at low levels.

Never said it was. In fact I use the EXP system as is.

Prove that there is a reason to change the progression at low levels. Prove that a Level 1 character is ECL 2, or that a Level 2 character is ECL 4. You simply can't do it, period, because it's not true.

Actually what I have said previously was that ECL 1 (Level 1) = CR 2; ECL 2 (Level 2) = CR 4.

Now that I have changed the terminology its:

CR 1 (Level 1) = EL 2; CR 2 (Level 2) = EL 4

If that were the case, one Level 1 character could take on four hobgoblins, which would be laughable at best.

In other words you have just admitted you don't have a clue how the system works. Since:

1 Hobgoblin = CR 1/2
Therefore 2 Hobgoblins = CR 1 = EL 2
Therefore 4 Hobgoblins = CR 2 = EL 4

4 Hobgoblins are equal to a 2nd-level character.

Please do prove it. Unless this can be proven in a game, you have no base. Since the game has *always* played *without a problem* at lower levels (I know, I've been playing ever since the release of 3rd Edition), there is no way to prove that there is a problem.

I already explained that the problems would be less noticeable at lower levels. That doesn't mean the problems don't exist though.

Your example of four Level 1 characters *supposedly* equal to a CR 5 by the rules is INVALID, because that is not stated ANYWHERE. Four Level 1 characters, by the book, are "UK equal" to CR 4 (1+1+1+1), and that's STILL not a "good" encounter, but rather, BY THE RULES, a "very difficult" encounter. You DO NOT judge challenge based on character vs. character, but by FOUR PCs vs. a CR equal to party level. That means a single CR 1 creature is a suitable challenge for a Level 1 party, and a CR 4, although "UK equal", by the rules it is a very difficult encounter and one that the party should fleee from ACCORDING TO THE RULES.

Please read the Dungeon Masters Guide pages 101/102.

So again, please offer proof for all of your claims. I have stated specific rules and given examples that support my argument, that AND playing the game without problems.

You set your misgivings up and I'll knock em' down one by one.

I ignored this statement before, but now I have to object, because I NEVER said that a 20th-level character was no match for a Level 16 party. I said a Level 16 party ran over a BALOR. I thus believe the Balor to NOT be Level 20, but rather Level 15.

To which I replied 'How would a 20th-level NPC have fared any different' and you agreed that it wouldn't!

Another point I failed to mention before, however, was the party makeup.

Level 1 Quasi-deity Fighter (at ECL +14 before I conceded that quasi-deities were more than that)
Level 1 Saiyan Warrior
Levle 16 Sorcerer
Level 16 Cleric/Sacred Fist

Irrelevant give the strategy was one that could have been undertaken by any typical party.

The other point I mentioned, which disproves your accusation, is that the supposed CR 20 Ancient Brown Dragon SQUASHED THIS PARTY EASILY. I think that means I claims Level 20 was way to much for a Level 16 party to fight with.

LOL!

Who was it that determined the Ancient Brown Dragon was CR 20!? Would that be WotC perchance!?

...and they are usually so good at determining Dragon CRs aren't they! LOL!

Unless you can quote where I said a Level 20 character dies at the hands of a Level 16 party, stop accusing me of doing so!

I remember the conversation clearly enough. I don't want to have to traipse through 600+ posts to find a single reference; especially given the length of some of these replies.

Frankly I think its churlish paranoia for someone debating with your level of misinformation to make such a claim anyway.

I bet you're not going with either of my proposed fixes for Heal and Harm, despite the fact that my fix balances perfectly.

I don't remember being made aware of 'your' proposed fixes?

Basically, my first version of Harm is "take enough damage to be reduced to 1 hp or take 100 damage, whichever is less damage; will save for half damage". Heal gives back 100 hp flat. Mass Heal and "Mass Harm" are self-explanatory here.

My second version makes Heal give back 1d8 hp/level +1 hp/level. Harm takes away the same amount. Mass Heal and Mass Harm are against self-explanatory.

I will be using 1d6/level (Harm/Heal) and 1d8/level (Mass Heal*)

*and Mass Harm.

Show something, ANYTHING that supports your theories.

Which elements are you still not happy with?

Also, how will those of us without Dragon gonna get a hold of this?

Perhaps interested parties could email me in a week or so.

Though I can't imagine you would be interested Anubis mate!? According to you none of my ideas make any sense.

What if they don't accept your article?

Then they dont accept the article.

What if it takes them 3 months to put it in?

Then it takes three months to put it in.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

I thought I would lump the Anubis-Xeriar exchange and Gez subsequent comments into one reply since none is directly targeted at me.

The main argument seems to be nitpicking over semantics.

This is irrelevant given the change in terminology I stated in my last post which (for brevity) I will repeat herein:

I am now using CR in place of ECL (though the two are in effect the same).

I am now using EL in place of (what I had deemed) CR.

Hopefully this will avoid any further quibbling over terminology.

Secondly Gez raised the point of some encounters (of the same CR) not being balanced. As I have mentioned before these are situational factors beyond any methodology to control. As per the list of such factors in the DMG page 102 under 'Difficulty Notes'