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

[Anubis]

My players usually use slashing or piercing weapons, so skeletons are usually a good encounter against them... And I think that's the problem with a system to calculate ECL... A red dragon ECL is different if the wizard has fireballs prepared or if he has ice storms prepared... I don't think a unified system could possibly solve this.

The average party will have at least one bludgeoning weapon, usually wielded by the party cleric. Also, the cleric can easily turn the creatures and make them unable to do anything, although that is rarely necessary. GROUPS of skeletons can cause trouble, but A skeleton, no way.

 

[poilbrun]

The average party will have at least one bludgeoning weapon, usually wielded by the party cleric.

I think that's exactly the problem. You seem to think everyone plays your way. Just as with the fighter who you thought would always have a weapon of sure striking. I mean no offense, but if you try to design new rules, you must not limit yourself to how you and the groups with which you play or the groups you saw playing, play.

I began a new campaign as a player last Saturday (yes, I had been waiting for that for three years! ), and there is still no cleric, although it is possible that for next time, a new player will arrive and he may play a cleric, but he may also play a paladin, which would give us some healing spells, but not for some time. And if that's what he does, he may well decide to use a greatsword or something the like. Which means we won't have any bludgeoning weapon in the group (except my quarterstaff, but since I'm a wizard with 11hp, ac12 and a 8 str, I sure as hell won't fight any monster! ) since the other players are a ranger specialized in the bow who intends to specialize in two-weapon fighting as he advances and a halfling rogue using a shortsword. In a campaign I DMed some time ago, the five players were all playing elves (two fighter, one specialized in the bow, the other in the longsword, a rogue, a wizard and a priest), and they all fought with a longsword (because it is the favored weapon of Corellon Larethian) and a composite longbow. Were they wrong in doing so? Maybe, but it made much more sense roleplaywise. Did they fight no skeleton? Hell, no! But they certainly had more trouble than a group of dwarven followers of Moradin who decided to all fight with a warhammer.

All this boils down to one thing : no two groups have the same way of playing. So, you must not limit yourself to one way if you want your rules to encompass every group. Of course, if you were designing an ECL system for you and your group only, you'd not have to care about others' way of playing, but seeing the hard work you have put into this to bring the people here a good system, I believe that's not what you're aiming for.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anubis mate!

I am very interested in seeing what your work has produced.

Thanks!

After some studying, though, I have noticed that a MAJORITY of the CRs in the MM are accurate. Only Celestials, Demons, Devils, Dragons, Titans, and Tarrasque are grossly incorrect.

Actually innacuracies will seem more glaring at high-level (and beyond).

This is serious!

You're nuts.

I've use skeletons plenty, and a medium-size skeleton isn't a challenge for a Level 1 party AT ALL. In fact, skeletons usually die in a single hit without a problem, using NONE of the party's resources. How is a medium-size skeleton CR 1?

It could likely win initiative, gets two attacks, takes half damage from slashing or piercing weaponry. In my opinion it represents about the same challenge as a 1st-level character (given a weapon).

Same with zombies, except they take two hits before going down. Still no resources are used.

...and you think these resources would be used against a 1st-level NPC instead?

Try to think laterally.

I disagree.

Thats your prerogative.

It has slowly become obvious that there is NO system that works at low AND high levels. A system that works at low levels breaks down at high levels, and a system that works right at high levels breaks down at low levels.

Feel free to give up at any time.

Would you like to test the skeleton theory? I can GUARANTEE that a Level 1 party could beat one without taking a scratch 99% of the time.

Can I have four skeletons with swords and shields? We could pay homage to Jason and the Argonauts.

Yep, they all come out with a higher ECL than they should get. Dwarves and Elves both end up as ECL +1 when they should be ECL 0, meaning no ECL.

Did you deduct the fact that their Hit Dice won't figure into the equation?

Skeletons and Zombies have a lot of immunities that break their ECL.

True but they do have a number of penalties also: Mindless; no Constitution; (partial actions for Zombies; though I think that changed in the errata?)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey poilbrun mate!

My players usually use slashing or piercing weapons, so skeletons are usually a good encounter against them... And I think that's the problem with a system to calculate ECL... A red dragon ECL is different if the wizard has fireballs prepared or if he has ice storms prepared... I don't think a unified system could possibly solve this.

Exactly. You have to be generic not circumstantial.

The average party will have at least one bludgeoning weapon, usually wielded by the party cleric. Also, the cleric can easily turn the creatures and make them unable to do anything, although that is rarely necessary. GROUPS of skeletons can cause trouble, but A skeleton, no way.

The argument is that they can cause as much trouble as a 1st-level character; not whether they can defeat a 1st-level party.

I think that's exactly the problem. You seem to think everyone plays your way. Just as with the fighter who you thought would always have a weapon of sure striking. I mean no offense, but if you try to design new rules, you must not limit yourself to how you and the groups with which you play or the groups you saw playing, play.

I began a new campaign as a player last Saturday (yes, I had been waiting for that for three years! ),

Good luck with the new campaign mate!

and there is still no cleric, although it is possible that for next time, a new player will arrive and he may play a cleric, but he may also play a paladin, which would give us some healing spells, but not for some time. And if that's what he does, he may well decide to use a greatsword or something the like. Which means we won't have any bludgeoning weapon in the group (except my quarterstaff, but since I'm a wizard with 11hp, ac12 and a 8 str, I sure as hell won't fight any monster! ) since the other players are a ranger specialized in the bow who intends to specialize in two-weapon fighting as he advances and a halfling rogue using a shortsword. In a campaign I DMed some time ago, the five players were all playing elves (two fighter, one specialized in the bow, the other in the longsword, a rogue, a wizard and a priest), and they all fought with a longsword (because it is the favored weapon of Corellon Larethian) and a composite longbow. Were they wrong in doing so? Maybe, but it made much more sense roleplaywise. Did they fight no skeleton? Hell, no! But they certainly had more trouble than a group of dwarven followers of Moradin who decided to all fight with a warhammer.

All this boils down to one thing : no two groups have the same way of playing. So, you must not limit yourself to one way if you want your rules to encompass every group. Of course, if you were designing an ECL system for you and your group only, you'd not have to care about others' way of playing, but seeing the hard work you have put into this to bring the people here a good system, I believe that's not what you're aiming for.

Absolutely.

 

[-Eä-]

Incidently I worked out a formula for the Epic Wealth Tables (which actually reverse engineers, I think) last night.

Essentially you find where the table doubles over then note the number of intervening levels. Then the next time it doubles the number of intervening levels is +1.

And what is your conclusion?

Actually, that's the arithmetic sum-doubling formula of which I was speaking, from which I derived my (too complicated) system (-: This idea is the way to go to get results matching very well.

By the way: Using CR (with the appropriate decimals) instead of ECL is the best way to go from a pure mathematical viewpoint... This, however, is only valid if you set these premises:
1. Your CR-system is correct
2. WotC character wealth by level tables is the basis for character wealth.
If you don't agree with premise 2, then there is no problem devising a simple system that works for all levels: Just tell me from where to start, and a formula is to be devised pretty soon.

And for arithmetic increase proposed by Anubis and Simon: I agree, it is a simple and relatively accurate way to go (sometimes I get screwed, thinking all progressions need to be justified using some excisting system (-; ), so if you find using such a system simple and minimally time consuming, I say: Go for it!
Personally I will not, but that's because I love having complicated systems (which only a handfull will use) (-: (You should also know that I like trying to find simpler approximations, which in essence is what I'm trying to do with character wealth now)

 

[Anubis]

I think that's exactly the problem. You seem to think everyone plays your way. Just as with the fighter who you thought would always have a weapon of sure striking. I mean no offense, but if you try to design new rules, you must not limit yourself to how you and the groups with which you play or the groups you saw playing, play.

I began a new campaign as a player last Saturday (yes, I had been waiting for that for three years! ), and there is still no cleric, although it is possible that for next time, a new player will arrive and he may play a cleric, but he may also play a paladin, which would give us some healing spells, but not for some time. And if that's what he does, he may well decide to use a greatsword or something the like. Which means we won't have any bludgeoning weapon in the group (except my quarterstaff, but since I'm a wizard with 11hp, ac12 and a 8 str, I sure as hell won't fight any monster! ) since the other players are a ranger specialized in the bow who intends to specialize in two-weapon fighting as he advances and a halfling rogue using a shortsword. In a campaign I DMed some time ago, the five players were all playing elves (two fighter, one specialized in the bow, the other in the longsword, a rogue, a wizard and a priest), and they all fought with a longsword (because it is the favored weapon of Corellon Larethian) and a composite longbow. Were they wrong in doing so? Maybe, but it made much more sense roleplaywise. Did they fight no skeleton? Hell, no! But they certainly had more trouble than a group of dwarven followers of Moradin who decided to all fight with a warhammer.

All this boils down to one thing : no two groups have the same way of playing. So, you must not limit yourself to one way if you want your rules to encompass every group. Of course, if you were designing an ECL system for you and your group only, you'd not have to care about others' way of playing, but seeing the hard work you have put into this to bring the people here a good system, I believe that's not what you're aiming for.

Actually, CR and ECL is supposed to be based on averages and how the average party is handled. I recently figured out that the absolute best way to determine the average party is to take the four primary iconics. Tordek, Jozan, Mialee, and Lidda. Compare all things CR and ECL to these four iconics, the epitome of the normal/average party. That is the basis for what I am saying.

Actually innacuracies will seem more glaring at high-level (and beyond).

Yep. It just so happens I may have a solution.

It could likely win initiative, gets two attacks, takes half damage from slashing or piercing weaponry. In my opinion it represents about the same challenge as a 1st-level character (given a weapon).

You're overlooking the fact that skeletons have an extremely poor attack bonus, and on average, will not hit the things fighting it. The average AC on a Level 1 Fighter is 16, and a skeleton would need a 16 to hit that!

...and you think these resources would be used against a 1st-level NPC instead?

Try to think laterally.

I am, and I know for a fact that a Level 1 NPC from the DMG would present a greater challenge than a single skeleton.

Can I have four skeletons with swords and shields? We could pay homage to Jason and the Argonauts.

You're forgetting that we're arguing the CR of a medium-size skeleton, not the encounter level of a group of skeletons. A single creature with a CR equal to the average party level should exhaust about 25% of the party's resources. A single medium-size skeleton simply can't do that. That is what this debate is about. AT LEAST three medium-size skeletons is needed to give a Level 1 party any challenge.

Did you deduct the fact that their Hit Dice won't figure into the equation?

Ah, I overlooked that. Indeed, they get no "hit dice". Okay, so that takes care of THAT, but it still doesn't take care of skeletons, zombies, and vermin.

True but they do have a number of penalties also: Mindless; no Constitution; (partial actions for Zombies; though I think that changed in the errata?)

Not that I am aware of. There is no such errata. Zombies do indeed get only partial actions.

Exactly. You have to be generic not circumstantial.

As I said, I'm going on the normal/average party, which WILL have a cleric and at least one bludgeoning weapon.

The argument is that they can cause as much trouble as a 1st-level character; not whether they can defeat a 1st-level party.

If a simgle skeleton were CR 1, it would exhaust 25% of the party's resources. This is not the case.



Anyway, moving on, I would suggest basing the values of certain abilities on the hid dice modifier to ECL. If this is 1 or less, all special abilities should be considered to be ECL +1/8. If this is 2-4, all special abilities should be ECL +1/4.

This is just an idea, I have yet to test it in any way. I may just be impossible to determine ECL in this way with things at low levels. Any which way, the creatures with only 1 Level/Hit Die are gonna come out wrong.

I dunno . . . I'm about to just look at a creature, look at what it can do, and then use DM discretion to decide ECL/CR.

 

[Knight Otu]

Of course I looked at it, but I have a very poor short term memory for even the stuff I am working on; so the chances of me remembering such a thing is slim to none...as in this case.

Here it is. I'd say that there is the possibility that this template would be ECL*2, that's wjy I brought it up.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello Eä mate!

And what is your conclusion?

I haven't concluded anything yet - I am going to leave things for a week or so then return to them.

Actually, that's the arithmetic sum-doubling formula of which I was speaking, from which I derived my (too complicated) system (-: This idea is the way to go to get results matching very well.

By the way: Using CR (with the appropriate decimals) instead of ECL is the best way to go from a pure mathematical viewpoint... This, however, is only valid if you set these premises:
1. Your CR-system is correct
2. WotC character wealth by level tables is the basis for character wealth.
If you don't agree with premise 2, then there is no problem devising a simple system that works for all levels: Just tell me from where to start, and a formula is to be devised pretty soon.

I'm not going to worry about it now - I'll sort something out eventually.

And for arithmetic increase proposed by Anubis and Simon: I agree, it is a simple and relatively accurate way to go (sometimes I get screwed, thinking all progressions need to be justified using some excisting system (-; ), so if you find using such a system simple and minimally time consuming, I say: Go for it!

This could be the way to go...?

Personally I will not, but that's because I love having complicated systems (which only a handfull will use) (-: (You should also know that I like trying to find simpler approximations, which in essence is what I'm trying to do with character wealth now)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anubis mate!

You're overlooking the fact that skeletons have an extremely poor attack bonus, and on average, will not hit the things fighting it. The average AC on a Level 1 Fighter is 16, and a skeleton would need a 16 to hit that!

The difference between a skeleton and a 1st-level cleric is 0.

I am, and I know for a fact that a Level 1 NPC from the DMG would present a greater challenge than a single skeleton.

I would certainly say that it could (dependant on how it was played) but not necessarily that it would.

You're forgetting that we're arguing the CR of a medium-size skeleton, not the encounter level of a group of skeletons. A single creature with a CR equal to the average party level should exhaust about 25% of the party's resources. A single medium-size skeleton simply can't do that. That is what this debate is about. AT LEAST three medium-size skeletons is needed to give a Level 1 party any challenge.

I just don't like this whole 25% resorces nonsense - its useless for equating CR.

Ah, I overlooked that. Indeed, they get no "hit dice". Okay, so that takes care of THAT, but it still doesn't take care of skeletons, zombies, and vermin.

Not that I am aware of. There is no such errata. Zombies do indeed get only partial actions.

I am sure S'mon mentioned it to me not so long ago?

As I said, I'm going on the normal/average party, which WILL have a cleric and at least one bludgeoning weapon.

So...

If a simgle skeleton were CR 1, it would exhaust 25% of the party's resources. This is not the case.

Then a 1st-level character is not CR1.

Anyway, moving on, I would suggest basing the values of certain abilities on the hid dice modifier to ECL. If this is 1 or less, all special abilities should be considered to be ECL +1/8. If this is 2-4, all special abilities should be ECL +1/4.

This is just an idea, I have yet to test it in any way. I may just be impossible to determine ECL in this way with things at low levels.

Okay, sounds interesting.

Any which way, the creatures with only 1 Level/Hit Die are gonna come out wrong.

Nope.

I dunno . . . I'm about to just look at a creature, look at what it can do, and then use DM discretion to decide ECL/CR.

In other words we just tell people to make their own system up!

By the way Knight Otu mate - I will respond to your post in that thread.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Quick question...

Are you guys still heavily "in process" or approaching a completed product?

Thanks.