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

[Upper_Krust]

Spell Resistance

Hi Anubis mate!

I'll check into your DragonballZ thread right after this.

Moving on to the SR, I have agreed with Ea from the beginning. Take for instance a Level 160 character, who is CR 50. If he tries to cast a spell at a Level 175 character with SR 185, he has almost no chance of breaking through the SR, and only a minimal chance with various feats added.

Well firstly how exactly are these characters gaining this Spell Resistance, are they both drow? Seemingly this facet of the dark elf race adds 10% to its ECL.

Another level 175 character with the same feats, however, would almost never fail in breaking through the SR.

I see...and how exactly will this unbalance the proceedings?

At this level its almost guaranteed that epic spells will dominate the proceedings - don't you agree!?

Yet these two are the exact same SR.

I presume you mean the same CR?

This means the whole system breaks down once you're in triple-digit levels, even though it is still starting to break down around Level 50.

Lets look past these Drow (or Monks I suppose) with their uber spell resistance for a moment.

What I have proposed is make all caster level numbers for SR a function of CR instead of Level.

If I'm reading you right (?) I actually agree with you!

Base all SR on the CR of the creature (for instance, make a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon SR 50 or so since it is about CR 45).

I can see a case for SR being akin to (modified) CR+11

eg. Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon (CR42) = SR 53.

However, I don't believe all monsters should be so formulaic, most, but certainly not all. You also have the situation of epic monsters with the spell resistance feat.

Next, make the caster level check for penetrating SR based on the CR of the spellcasting class (a Level 100 Wizard is CR 42, so the check would be 1d20+42).

For multi-classed characters, take the CR function of only the spellcasting class (for instance, a Ftr50/Wiz100 would still have CR 42 in the spellcasting class, and thus make a check at 1d20+42, regardless of when those wizard levels are gained).

A very interesting idea, now that I analyse its simplicity. Of course it means having to rework all the SRs in the MM and ELH.

I'm still not convinced taking balance to such extremes is actually necessary though. Also the Spell Resistance Feat becomes very, very powerful. As do items or spells that grant Spell Resistance.

Also, what next. Do we balance attack bonus to armour class? Do we balance damage to hit points. Its very easy to get enthralled by balance to the extent that it dominates the proceedings. Isn't it better to just accept that some monsters have high armour classes; some characters have high attack bonuses; some monsters have high spell resistance and epic wizards don't care!

On a side note, I highly suggest doing the same thing to dispel checks. If you don't, a CR 50 Level 160 Wizard would have no chance of dispelling magic cast by a Level 175 Wizard, despite the CR being exactly the same. Basically, make all caster level checks a function of CR, regardless of what the check is for.

They could always use the Superb Dispelling epic spell (or a variation thereof).

Note, however, that the actual caster level for spells is still the level, so spells wouldn't lose any power under this rule.

It still seemingly cheapens single class spellcasters.

But its definately an idea I am considering.

 

[Blacksad]

Re: Spell Resistance

Hi Upper_Krust!

Well firstly how exactly are these characters gaining this Spell Resistance, are they both drow? Seemingly this facet of the dark elf race adds 10% to its ECL.

I haven't followed the update in the ECL/CR system, but don't you keep a system with fixed ECL? (ie the drow is +2 ECL, not an ECL based on a formula function of ECL itself).

Also remember that drow aren't alone in this matter, githzerai and githyanki have a similar SR.

I see...and how exactly will this unbalance the proceedings?

At this level its almost guaranteed that epic spells will dominate the proceedings - don't you agree!?

there is a limited number of epic spell per spellcaster, so a fight between a very high level caster and several high level caster might see some non-epic spells.

[snip]
I can see a case for SR being akin to (modified) CR+11

eg. Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon (CR42) = SR 53.

However, I don't believe all monsters should be so formulaic, most, but certainly not all. You also have the situation of epic monsters with the spell resistance feat.

A very interesting idea, now that I analyse its simplicity. Of course it means having to rework all the SRs in the MM and ELH.

yeah! at last!

Though you won't have to change any SR in the MM, between level 1 and 20 ECL equal CR, and a quick way to find the new SR for Epic monster is (SR-ELH CR)+IH CR, and for the lazy just consider the ELH CR to be the IH ECL (it gives relatively good results).

I'm still not convinced taking balance to such extremes is actually necessary though. Also the Spell Resistance Feat becomes very, very powerful. As do items or spells that grant Spell Resistance.

Also, what next. Do we balance attack bonus to armour class? Do we balance damage to hit points. Its very easy to get enthralled by balance to the extent that it dominates the proceedings. Isn't it better to just accept that some monsters have high armour classes; some characters have high attack bonuses; some monsters have high spell resistance and epic wizards don't care!

Yes, we need to balance everything!
More seriously, the SR was problematic because while some monster do have high SR, for a similar CR with the same monster parties of different ECL but similar CR faced different challenge, due to the change in CR calculation, a silly situation isn't it?

[snip]
It still seemingly cheapens single class spellcasters.

But its definately an idea I am considering.

You just have to base the caster level check on the CR of its spellcasting class a wizard 20/fighter 20 would have a caster level check of 1d20+20 while a wizard 40 would have 1d20+30.

 

[-Eä-]

Character wealth...again (-;

Ahh!

Always nice to have a little chatter on how things gets when scaling systems. It increases the understanding of the system...




I'm saying that ECL^3*100 is silly because it represent too much planetary inflasion if you are to consider high level characters. Taken that they have accumulated that much wealth during their career, all else will be negligible. There is no problem for a 60th level character to rise 4 levels after a battle, as per experience points. That's an increase of 4 ECLs and for each ECL the rise in wealth per level is equal to ECL^2*300, i.e. rising, and in my opinion, this should not be the case, because the power of the character per level is NOT increasing per ECL, and therefore it is plain silly that character wealth per ECL should do that.
However, this is just the ECL part.

The reason I say that both CR^4*5 is OK and ECL^3*100 is plain silly is that CR and ECL is conected in a logarithmic way, and to make such assumptions that you make in character wealth assignment makes no sense, as the "total wealth" (ECL^3*100) grows exponentially compared to "equipment wealth" (CR^3*100). In a "normal" fantasy world the inflation would be too great in my opnion, as to minor magic items, castles, gold and so on.

And when I say "accurate" I have made the two simple assumptions that:
1. Your CR system is correct
2. The wealth per level given in the ELH is that which is to represent the current power level of a given character with respect to magic items.
If you don't make assumptions, any arbritrary system may be correct.
I did, however, see another assumption here, that the increase should be equivalent to a factor of how much more magic weapons are to cost. (i.e ECL^2*Z, where Z is a constant). While it's a valid assumption, this is not a system which accounts for the increase in power of the character. It's impossible to relate exponential growth to polynomial growth (unless you have an infinite polynomial.)

As for magic resistenace: Now I see what you mean! Thanks for pointing that out.



SR again: I agree that monsters should not be formulaic. But one needs to see how SR affects things:
I think one of the major points that has been pointed out is the same CR-thingy. If you take Anubis' example: The one you can penetrate the SR to, you can kill in a instant kill spell, giving the character almost no chance, then if you meet a character that is 30 levels higher, yet no change in CR, you won't have a chance doing that. That's an oversimplification, of course, but it is a valid point, still.

I can see your point on how it "cheapens" single classed spellcasters, as if a non-spellcaster takes spellcaster classes later on, the increase in efficiency in penetrating SR will be much greater. But if you base all this off CR, those characters will have almost no chance penetrating the tougher SR challenges, when the single classed character will have a more than fair chance.

By the way AB compared to AC isn't the same issue as we here have Hit Points and feats like Power Attack and Expertise to compensate.



By the way: In the IH, you should print the ECL as well as the CR. Some people (like I) use a slightly different system than you when calculating CR.

 

[Anubis]

Re: Spell Resistance

I see...and how exactly will this unbalance the proceedings?

The thing that is unbalanced is that fact that two different characters of the same CR have widely different chances of penetrating the same SR, despite being generally at the same power level for purposes of CR.

In other words, two characters of the same CR should have roughly equal chances of penetrating the same SR.

At this level its almost guaranteed that epic spells will dominate the proceedings - don't you agree!?

I doubt that very much, actually. From what I've seen, the normal spells are still far more powerful, usually. There are some exceptions, but all things considered, I think metamagic spells of Levels 1-9 are still the most potent.

I presume you mean the same CR?

Yep, that's what I meant. It was a typo.

Lets look past these Drow (or Monks I suppose) with their uber spell resistance for a moment.

There were no specific characters, really. Just something with SR 175.

I can see a case for SR being akin to (modified) CR+11

eg. Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon (CR42) = SR 53.

However, I don't believe all monsters should be so formulaic, most, but certainly not all. You also have the situation of epic monsters with the spell resistance feat.

Ah, now I understand your hesitation. You thought I was proposing a formula for determining SR! That's not at all what I propose. Some thigns will have an SR formula, of course, such as monks and drow. For these, I suggest taking their SR based on their CR as well, so as not to make them too powerful. In other words, a Mnk30 won't have SR 40 but rather SR 35.)

For all other monsters with SR, you just need to assign a new SR, if necessary, to fit the challenge of the encounter. First off, let me state that I believe there is no need to change ANY of the SR numbers in the MM, although you MAY need to change quite a few in the ELH.

Actually, upon actually looking at the numbers in the ELH, you may not need to change many of them either. Just the most powerful creatures', such as the Prismatic Dragon and the Hecatoncheires. Even then, you may not have to change things by much.

What I'm saying is, pretend you make an all new creature, and it turns out to be, oh, ECL 200, which is CR 52. Now SR should change the difficulty too much. Just assign an arbitrary number that fits. Perhaps, in this case, the new monster would have SR 70, or something like that. As long as it is within 16-26 of the CR, you should be okay, more than that if characters aren't supposed to be able to break through SR very easily. See what I'm saying? In other words, you're right, a formula for determining SR simply does not work. You gotta make a judgment call.

The MM is okay, either which way, and most of the ELH is okay as well. It's just something worth mentioning, because that's what I'm actually saying.

Don't misunderstand me, however. I'm not saying there is no formula for PENETRATING SR, just no formula for reassigning SR to creatures who may have too much or too little. Assign SR by judgment. For penetration, dispel, and everything else, use CR instead of level.

As always, this does not change hte power of spells, which is still based on level for determining range, damage, etc.

A very interesting idea, now that I analyse its simplicity. Of course it means having to rework all the SRs in the MM and ELH.

Like I said, it IS simple, and you wouldn't have to reassign hardly anything. Everything in the MM save for MAYBE the Solar is probably already perfect.

For the ones you DO have to reassign, forget formulas and reassign based on your best judgment byu taking the CR and adding a number to it to be the average chance of penetrating. (Be CERTAIN to take Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, and Epic Spell Penetration into consideration when assigning these numbers!)

I'm still not convinced taking balance to such extremes is actually necessary though. Also the Spell Resistance Feat becomes very, very powerful. As do items or spells that grant Spell Resistance.

This isn't taking it to the extreme, this is simply making SR relevent at higher levels. As it is, with two people with the *same CR*, one could have a 100% chance of penetrating while the other has a 0% chance of penetrating! Certainly that does not work?

Also, what next. Do we balance attack bonus to armour class? Do we balance damage to hit points. Its very easy to get enthralled by balance to the extent that it dominates the proceedings. Isn't it better to just accept that some monsters have high armour classes; some characters have high attack bonuses; some monsters have high spell resistance and epic wizards don't care!

Attack and AC and damage and hp are already balanced. That's why the more powerful you get, the higher these numbers get.

It still seemingly cheapens single class spellcasters.

How so?! This makes levels of the class worth exactly the same no matter when you get the levels, that's all. Makes multiclassing into spellcasting actually worth it (eventually). If you didn't do this, the Ftr40/Wiz4 would only get +1 to penetrate SR while a Wiz4/Ftr 40 gets +4 to penetrate SR, despite them having equal training in spellcasting! No, best to take the levels as they are and determing only that class's CR for penetration.

But its definately an idea I am considering.

It's the only way for SR to have meaning at higher levels. I hope my answers here haven't injected any confusion into the matter . . . If you have ANY questions, just ask, and I'll explain point for point if necessary.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Re: Spell Resistance

Hi Upper_Krust!

Bonsoir mon ami Blacksad!

I haven't followed the update in the ECL/CR system, but don't you keep a system with fixed ECL? (ie the drow is +2 ECL, not an ECL based on a formula function of ECL itself).

Yes. But Spell Resistance is a flexible component thereof.

Also remember that drow aren't alone in this matter, githzerai and githyanki have a similar SR.

Indeed. Similarly extravagent.

there is a limited number of epic spell per spellcaster, so a fight between a very high level caster and several high level caster might see some non-epic spells.

Possibly - though not likely primarily.

yeah! at last!

Though you won't have to change any SR in the MM, between level 1 and 20 ECL equal CR, and a quick way to find the new SR for Epic monster is (SR-ELH CR)+IH CR, and for the lazy just consider the ELH CR to be the IH ECL (it gives relatively good results).

Seemingly Dragons; Solars and the like may need changing to bring them in line.

Yes, we need to balance everything!

More seriously, the SR was problematic because while some monster do have high SR, for a similar CR with the same monster parties of different ECL but similar CR faced different challenge, due to the change in CR calculation, a silly situation isn't it?

I'm still wondering if this is a balancing act too far...?

You just have to base the caster level check on the CR of its spellcasting class a wizard 20/fighter 20 would have a caster level check of 1d20+20 while a wizard 40 would have 1d20+30.

What about the imbalancing of the Spell Resistance feat; as well as spells and items that convey it though!?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Character wealth...again (-;

Hi Eä matey!

Ahh!

Always nice to have a little chatter on how things gets when scaling systems. It increases the understanding of the system...

Absolutely.

I'm saying that ECL^3*100 is silly because it represent too much planetary inflasion if you are to consider high level characters.

Lets look at some epic-level demographics then:

1 20th-level character for every 31,250
1 25th-level character for every 1 million
1 39th-level character for every 1 billion
1 50th-level character for every 1 trillion

1 100th-level character for every (approx.) 1 octillion (166 quodrillion times earths population)

For Immortals you could feasibly halve the factor each time you doubled their age beyond 100 years.

Taken that they have accumulated that much wealth during their career, all else will be negligible. There is no problem for a 60th level character to rise 4 levels after a battle, as per experience points.

Is this 'no problem' you speak of taking on a CR+8 encounter on your own! (a practically unwinnable situation)

That's an increase of 4 ECLs and for each ECL the rise in wealth per level is equal to ECL^2*300, i.e. rising, and in my opinion, this should not be the case, because the power of the character per level is NOT increasing per ECL, and therefore it is plain silly that character wealth per ECL should do that.
However, this is just the ECL part.

Well, beings are not very likely to ascend four levels in any battle.

Looking at the example presented in the Storm Lords Keep the PCs are going to end up with about 5 million GP worth of loot (mostly items, practically none of which will become personal equipment)

The reason I say that both CR^4*5 is OK and ECL^3*100 is plain silly is that CR and ECL is conected in a logarithmic way, and to make such assumptions that you make in character wealth assignment makes no sense, as the "total wealth" (ECL^3*100) grows exponentially compared to "equipment wealth" (CR^3*100). In a "normal" fantasy world the inflation would be too great in my opnion, as to minor magic items, castles, gold and so on.

Thats because the value of primary equipment levels off, whereas wealth still accumulates!

The entirety of their wealth will not be comprised exclusively of personal equipment, but more and more secondary equipment; monetary wealth and property will build up.

They may have enough money to buy a small city; but even with planar metropolis access they still only have a chance of purchasing* the epic items they require - and then only up to 600,000 GP limit.

*subject to availability (perhaps a flat 10% chance of having a specific item per year)

And when I say "accurate" I have made the two simple assumptions that:
1. Your CR system is correct

...just as long as its not incorrect.

2. The wealth per level given in the ELH is that which is to represent the current power level of a given character with respect to magic items.
If you don't make assumptions, any arbritrary system may be correct.

The thing to do is make logical assumptions

I did, however, see another assumption here, that the increase should be equivalent to a factor of how much more magic weapons are to cost. (i.e ECL^2*Z, where Z is a constant). While it's a valid assumption, this is not a system which accounts for the increase in power of the character. It's impossible to relate exponential growth to polynomial growth (unless you have an infinite polynomial.)

Nope...you've lost me again mate!

As for magic resistenace: Now I see what you mean! Thanks for pointing that out.

No problem mate.

SR again: I agree that monsters should not be formulaic. But one needs to see how SR affects things:

I think one of the major points that has been pointed out is the same CR-thingy. If you take Anubis' example: The one you can penetrate the SR to, you can kill in a instant kill spell, giving the character almost no chance, then if you meet a character that is 30 levels higher, yet no change in CR, you won't have a chance doing that. That's an oversimplification, of course, but it is a valid point, still.

You shouldn't rely on spell resistance to solve all your problems.

I can see your point on how it "cheapens" single classed spellcasters, as if a non-spellcaster takes spellcaster classes later on, the increase in efficiency in penetrating SR will be much greater. But if you base all this off CR, those characters will have almost no chance penetrating the tougher SR challenges, when the single classed character will have a more than fair chance.

Exactly, it benefits single class characters

By the way: In the IH, you should print the ECL as well as the CR. Some people (like I) use a slightly different system than you when calculating CR.

I do.

 

[-Eä-]

Epic Level Demographics

Ahh! There is the long awaited assumption of which I was talking! Now I see what your second assumption is: The demographics. Well...given that, I agree: The WotC "way" isn't necessarily the correct one. Well, if that's the assumption you make, the system proposed by WotC is just to throw away. There is no point in using that...

By the way: Have you tried using encounters for calculating character wealth? Say, using the standard NPCs proposed at a given level and take the number of such a party has to face before ascending, and add the total worth of the goods they loot to be the character wealth at the next level? Actually, I think this is a nice little procedure I may indulge to, just to check what the numbers are.

(By the way, I suspect that most personal equipment will be specially made for that character, not simple loot found here and there, but the components needed to create such an item may be paid for by the actual loot...at least that's how I see it)

How do you calculate such demographics!? And why? It would be interested for me to see that.

 

[Gez]

I'm just saying "hello !", I'm a bit lost here in these astronomical numbers.

This discussion about SR reminds me of my first RPG: a little game known as Dragon Knights (or something like that). The rules were quite simple, everybody had attack (BAB) and defense (AC) scores, dodge (Reflex save) score, and magical attack (caster level ?) and magical defense (roughly SR + will save) scores.

Had D&D been built with a similar principle (SR as a sort of save or AC), this issue would have been, IMHO, much simplified -- if the BAB/AC values are on par, then the CL/SR would be appropriate also.

 

[Knight Otu]

Re: Character wealth...again (-;

There is no problem for a 60th level character to rise 4 levels after a battle, as per experience points.

If I understand your point correctly, this is not correct. You cannot gain more than 1 level at once, according to the rules.

 

[-Eä-]

Re: Re: Character wealth...again (-;

If I understand your point correctly, this is not correct. You cannot gain more than 1 level at once, according to the rules.

I house rule that you can gain more than one level at once, which also UK has given his recomendations for in the past somewhere. The limitation is lame, in my opinion, because relative power needs to be considered.

As for the lvl 60 example, it was arbitrary, but you can take a more plausible example and still you have the same problem...