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

[Anubis]

UK, I thought you were gonna include stuff for mortals in the Immortal's Handbook? You used SDAs as arguments against me, which was beside the point. My custom feats are designed for regular mortal PCs primarily, and Improved Epic Toughness gives +100 hit points . . . That means your little SDA is quite weak . . . Maybe +500 would be better?

Trust me, I've tested my Toughness chain of feats, and they're perfectly balanced. Prerequisites are high, you get plenty for taking them, but they don't give too much. Yet your SDA for DEITIES gives the same?

Also, as for the Ki feats, these are also for mortals, who have NO access to Divine Blast and the like, so you're comparing apples and oranges there . . .

Now onto the ECL/CR thing . . . I've heard what you've said so far, and that's why I have my doubts. You have stated enough already. Just the ridiculous ECL 1 = CR 2 was enough to make me think that it's time I just used DM discretion for ECL and CR based on playtesting and no formulas. Sorry, but a Level 1 character is NOT a normal challenge (25% resources) for a party of Level 2 characters. Also, a Level 5 character has NEVER been the equivilant of four Level 1 characters. A CR 5 would be a challenge (25% resources) for four Level 5 characters, but an equal challenge (50/50) for a Level 4 character and a Level 2 character. Sounds right, and that's also how it plays.

I can tell you right now, however, that a single Level 5 character is a HUGE challenge for four Level 2 characters, although not impossible. I just played that, and the Level 2 party won the battle.

Basically, if you're gonna do this ECL/CR thing, you need to IMMEDIATELY stop with the comparing based on 50/50 chances, because that's not how the system was designed. The system was designed for four characters of Level X versus Level X challenge, and the party could win such a battle using 20-25% of their resources. THAT is the basis you must design your system by, or it'll never work. That's why you've had such trouble until now.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Anubis mate!

UK, I thought you were gonna include stuff for mortals in the Immortal's Handbook?

Where relevant to either immortals or religion, yes. Otherwise no.

You used SDAs as arguments against me, which was beside the point.

It was totally the point! You advocated the inclusion of feats that were more powerful than SDAs!

My custom feats are designed for regular mortal PCs primarily, and Improved Epic Toughness gives +100 hit points . . .

I think that tells a story in itself!

That means your little SDA is quite weak . . . Maybe +500 would be better?

I agree its quite weak compared to 'your' feat. Contrasted to any published material its perfectly balanced.

Trust me, I've tested my Toughness chain of feats, and they're perfectly balanced. Prerequisites are high, you get plenty for taking them, but they don't give too much. Yet your SDA for DEITIES gives the same?

I don't believe they are balanced. Not only are you giving away 265 hit points for a mere six feats but you are also increasing the deaths door range to -120 hp.

Thats effectively 375 hit points for SIX feats. I don't see any way to justify that!?

Also, as for the Ki feats, these are also for mortals, who have NO access to Divine Blast and the like, so you're comparing apples and oranges there . . .

I wouldn't include Apples in the Oranges Handbook either.

Now onto the ECL/CR thing . . . I've heard what you've said so far, and that's why I have my doubts.

Bit premature, but okay.

You have stated enough already.

So you already know and understand the changes I have made before I have even revealed them!?

Just the ridiculous ECL 1 = CR 2 was enough to make me think that it's time I just used DM discretion for ECL and CR based on playtesting and no formulas.

What part of CR 'x+4' = x4 CR 'x' don't you understand!?

eg. CR 40 = x4 CR 36

Sorry, but a Level 1 character is NOT a normal challenge (25% resources) for a party of Level 2 characters.

Never said it was.

I said a 1st-level character was CR 2.

Already you have forgotten the golden rule for modifying challenge ratings: YOU CHANGE THE PARTIES CR TOO!

Also, a Level 5 character has NEVER been the equivilant of four Level 1 characters.

According to WotC (and everyone using their challenge ratings) it is!

A CR 5 would be a challenge (25% resources) for four Level 5 characters,

A WotC CR5 would be a challenge (25% resources) for four Level 5 characters.

but an equal challenge (50/50) for a Level 4 character and a Level 2 character. Sounds right, and that's also how it plays.

A 50/50 challenge for a 5th-level character would be x4 3rd-level characters.

I can tell you right now, however, that a single Level 5 character is a HUGE challenge for four Level 2 characters, although not impossible. I just played that, and the Level 2 party won the battle.

Of course it is!

ECL 2 = CR 4
ECL 5 = CR 10
x4 ECL 2 = CR 8

A party of x4 ECL 2 characters would therefore be CR 4 for the purpose of determining opponents.

Basically, if you're gonna do this ECL/CR thing, you need to IMMEDIATELY stop with the comparing based on 50/50 chances, because that's not how the system was designed.

But I can compare and contrast based on either/or.

The system was designed for four characters of Level X versus Level X challenge, and the party could win such a battle using 20-25% of their resources. THAT is the basis you must design your system by, or it'll never work. That's why you've had such trouble until now.

I haven't had any trouble.

My system works perfectly using this mantra.

What you don't seem to understand is that two characters of the same level (or ECL) are a 50/50 contest. If we have four such characters against one; the party of four should win using 25% of their resources.

Two monsters of the same ECL are +2 CR; Four monsters of the same ECL are +4 CR; Eight monsters of the same ECL are +6 CR; Sixteen monsters of the same ECL are CR +8.

Its simple.

 

[Anubis]

I don't believe they are balanced. Not only are you giving away 265 hit points for a mere six feats but you are also increasing the deaths door range to -120 hp.

Thats effectively 375 hit points for SIX feats. I don't see any way to justify that!?

Prerequisites. You obviously haven't read them. Do you realize that only those with a good Fortitude save can take ALL of these feats before like Level 44, and those characters would have NO OTHER FEATS?! So far, I have seen very few actually take these feats, because of the insane prerequisites. That's the balancing factor. Do the math.

What part of CR 'x+4' = x4 CR 'x' don't you understand!?

eg. CR 40 = x4 CR 36

Never said it was.

I said a 1st-level character was CR 2.

Already you have forgotten the golden rule for modifying challenge ratings: YOU CHANGE THE PARTIES CR TOO!

According to WotC (and everyone using their challenge ratings) it is!

A WotC CR5 would be a challenge (25% resources) for four Level 5 characters.

A 50/50 challenge for a 5th-level character would be x4 3rd-level characters.

Of course it is!

ECL 2 = CR 4
ECL 5 = CR 10
x4 ECL 2 = CR 8

A party of x4 ECL 2 characters would therefore be CR 4 for the purpose of determining opponents.

You are making things overly complicated! Based on what I'm reading, it sounds like your system comes up with the exact same results as normal, except it takes three or four more steps to get there. Also, your party will never be Party Level 1 under your rules, because ECL 1 = CR 2, meaning they'll get less XP from the beginning, thus unbalancing the whole system.

In other words, you are now effectively creating an all new system that isn't the least bit compatible with the old one, that requires an inorinate amount of calculating to use. And for what? Things are already perfectly balanced at Levels 1-20, ya' know . . .

If you wanna clear everything up, why not post the system?

 

[S'mon]

Re: Re: Challenging Challenge Ratings...again

We tried some Play By EMail a few months ago but it was too time consuming. Though I totally loved the Battlecrusier 3000AD game he DMed online, despite the unrealistic ending.

As Simon mentioned; we got some gaming done when I was over in London for Gencon UK. I hope to go back over every few months (or so) when I have the cash.

I'm not sure if Simon is running any PBEM at the moment; probably says somewhere on his website? Simon?

It was 'Battle for the Galaxy 3300 AD' actually.
'Unrealistic ending' - Craig's Templars of Solaris' treachery backfired and he lost!
I don't recall it being unrealistic, you annoyed the Organa Republic player who you betrayed so much that he went all out to do you maximum damage regardless of the cost, leaving the way clear for Dave's Aurum Syndicate to sweep to victory.

I'm not doing any PBEMing; too busy with my tabletop game - BTW following yesterday's game it looks like the PCs might be gunning for Overking Tarkane...

 

[Gez]

Salut Craig !

You probably know what you're doing, but I don't really understand.

From my experience (and experiments), two CR X monsters havn't a 50/50 chance of winning against each other. This is especially true when one has the ability to fly and a ranged attack (like an arrowhawk) and the other is landbound (like a dinosaur).

Both may be equally challenging for a party of four adventurers made in the fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard archetypes, but if they fight each other, one of them is toast 100% of case.

And this talk about using ECL for CR and vice-versa is confusing also... It would have been great if monsters had been made, like standard adventurers, in a way that made CR=ECL=HD, but only a rare few are; and merely by sheer coincidence.

This seems a Don Quixotian crusade to sort the mess out of these numbers and force them to behave... I think we can trust you for making adequate rules, but here I'll be definitely interested in reading the actual thing. Just to know if you made it after a stroke of genius, or after smoking some dubious substance (Just joking, of course, but yes I'm a bit surprised.)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anubis mate!

Prerequisites. You obviously haven't read them. Do you realize that only those with a good Fortitude save can take ALL of these feats before like Level 44, and those characters would have NO OTHER FEATS?! So far, I have seen very few actually take these feats, because of the insane prerequisites. That's the balancing factor. Do the math.

They are totally unbalanced.

...and unless you are hiding prerequisites somewhere...

Toughness [General]
You are tougher than normal.
Benefit: You gain +5 hit points and your "death's door" range is extended by 10.

Dwarf's Toughness [General]
You are tougher than you were before.
Prerequisites: Base Fort save bonus +5, Toughness
Benefit: You gain +10 hit points and your "death's door" range is extended by 10.

Giant's Toughness [General]
You are amazingly tough.
Prerequisites: Base Fort save bonus +8, Toughness, Dwarf's Toughness
Benefit: You gain +20 hit points and your "death's door" range is extended by 10.

Dragon's Toughness [General]
You are incredibly tough.
Prerequisites: Base Fort save bonus +11, Toughness, Dwarf's Toughness, Giant's Toughness
Benefit: You gain +40 hit points and your "death's door" range is extended by 10.

Epic Toughness [Epic]
You are preternaturally tough.
Prerequisites: Toughness, Dwarf's Toughness, Giant's Toughness, Dragon's Toughness
Benefit: You gain +80 hit points and your "death's door" range is extended by 10.

Improved Epic Toughness [Epic]
You're extremely hard to kill, and your toughness amazes even the gods.
Prerequisites: Toughness, Dwarf's Toughness, Giant's Toughness, Dragon's Toughness, Epic Toughness
Benefit: You gain +100 hit points and your "death's door" range is doubled.

...thats effectively +375 hit points at early epic levels.

If you wanna clear everything up, why not post the system?

ECL 1-5 = +2 CR
ECL 6-10 = +1 CR
ECL 11-20 = +1/2 CR
ECL 21-40 = +1/4 CR
ECL 41-80 = +1/8 CR
etc.

eg.
ECL 3 = CR 6
ECL 9 = CR 14
ECL 15 = CR 18
ECL 30 = CR 22
ECL 67 = CR 28

1. To gauge a battle where a party of four PCs will win using (approx.) 25% of their resources - USE ECL.

eg.
Party of x4 15th-level characters VS. an ECL 15 opponent.

2. An effective challenge ranges from CR-8 to CR+8.

eg.
So the effective range for x4 15th-level characters is CR10-26. That means ECL 5 (CR-8) to ECL 55 (CR+8)

CR+/-0 = Party victory using 25% of their resources.
CR+4 = 50/50 chance of victory.
CR+8 = Opponent victory using 25% of their resources.

3. To calculate experience points take party level (eg. '15')
CR +/-0 = x300

eg.
15 x 300 = 4500 XP for a CR+/-0 battle.

4. For uneven encounters:

CR -8 = divide by 16
CR -7 = divide by 12
CR -6 = divide by 8
CR -5 = divide by 6
CR -4 = divide by 4
CR -3 = divide by 3
CR -2 = divide by 2
CR -1 = divide by 1.5
CR +/-0 = EXP equals Party Average Level x 300
CR +1 = x1.5
CR +2 = x2
CR +3 = x3
CR +4 = x4
CR +5 = x6
CR +6 = x8
CR +7 = x12
CR +8 = x16

You are making things overly complicated!

You are being silly.

Based on what I'm reading, it sounds like your system comes up with the exact same results as normal, except it takes three or four more steps to get there.

You are more silly than before.

Also, your party will never be Party Level 1 under your rules, because ECL 1 = CR 2, meaning they'll get less XP from the beginning, thus unbalancing the whole system.

You are amazingly silly.

In other words, you are now effectively creating an all new system that isn't the least bit compatible with the old one, that requires an inorinate amount of calculating to use.

You are incredibly silly.

And for what? Things are already perfectly balanced at Levels 1-20, ya' know . . .

You are preternaturally silly.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Salut Craig !

Bonjour Gez!

You probably know what you're doing,

Yes. Trust me!

but I don't really understand.

Thats okay.

It will be a lot clearer when you see the full rules; explanations and examples.

From my experience (and experiments), two CR X monsters havn't a 50/50 chance of winning against each other. This is especially true when one has the ability to fly and a ranged attack (like an arrowhawk) and the other is landbound (like a dinosaur).

Both may be equally challenging for a party of four adventurers made in the fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard archetypes, but if they fight each other, one of them is toast 100% of case.

Handled through situational modifiers since its not a measure of actual power.

And this talk about using ECL for CR and vice-versa is confusing also...

Wait for the finished product before passing judgement.

It would have been great if monsters had been made, like standard adventurers, in a way that made CR=ECL=HD, but only a rare few are; and merely by sheer coincidence.

The biggest confusion was made by WotC when they set their challenge ratings to the party average level; rather than individuals (then modify for number of party members).

This seems a Don Quixotian crusade to sort the mess out of these numbers and force them to behave... I think we can trust you for making adequate rules,

Thank you.

but here I'll be definitely interested in reading the actual thing. Just to know if you made it after a stroke of genius, or after smoking some dubious substance (Just joking, of course, but yes I'm a bit surprised.)

Considering whats happened over the past few days I doubt I will divulge any more specific ideas herein. Its time consuming; counter-productive and somewhat disheartening to have to explain myself over and over again.

Something Gary Gygax posted the other day that I am in total agreement with...

My belief is that the rules for an RPG should facilitate the enjoyment of the game for all concerned. If they get in the way then they are no good.

Whatever system brings fun for the group is fine. Hopefully the rules will be such as to enable that enjoyment to be for as long a period of play as the group wishes to experience.

Players who attempt to use the rules as a stick to beat players, or the GM, the latter thus enhancing their character in the game, are anethma to me. Hells bells! If some player in a game I am running demonstrates to me that some rule I have written makes no sense in the situation at hand. or I happen to discern that without such "encouragement," I toss the book out the proverbial window for the case at hand, and likely take a hard look at the material for continued application. Ecverybody makes errors...

...except probably the whole 'everybody makes errors' bit.

 

[Blacksad]

(Spell) Resistance is not futile.

Au contraire, bonjour Blacksad!

Hello Upper_Krust

The problem I see with spell resistance is that unlike other changes I have made (such as Challenge Ratings; Harm/Heal; Multiple Attacks for Multi-Armed Opponents etc.), it is not clearly broken. So changing it is firstly unnecessary; and secondly forces you to change other things just to compensate - something that inevitably snowballs out of control.

Hey, it's 2 changes only, the spell resistance itself, and the feat that increase spell resistance (just limit it to be taken three time max, like spell penetration, greater spell penetration and epic(?) spell penetration).

The pricing of the mantle of spell resistance is already broken any way you take it.

and on the first part, it is a problem that character of similar CR encounter different challenge with a monster of similar CR, due to level variation, and when a character one level before rising in CR face almost the same challenge regarding spell resistance than a character one CR higher, it might be a minor problem, but saying that it's importance lower at higher level won't make it disappear.

and you somehow contradict yourself, when you say that you don't want to change thing that aren't obviously broken, regarding CR between level 1 and 20: perhaps a level 2 character isn't CR 2, but a CR 2 monster certainly is CR 2 (per WotC way)(well is somewhat CR 2), and it is neither ECL 2 (per your way), as it might be way stronger than a level 2 character in some field (like hiding and such compared to a rogue).

Not at all, I mentioned previously...

Regarding Dragons they are definately undersold compared to their challenge ratings! The fact that this was supposedly done on purpose is somewhat insulting.

I think that you want to imprint you're personal opinion of dragons on all campaign, while you mentioned previously that you didn't want to do so.

Plus if you want to make all monster SR = CR+11, you could as well give them 50% Magic Resistance, with modifier based on EL (-8CR=-50%MR,+8CR=+50%MR).

I'm serious when I say that some monster are intended with greater or lower resistance, variety is fun in monster abilities, so the formula (old SR-old CR)+new CR would allow to keep this variety.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Yes it is.

Hello Upper_Krust

Bonjour mon ami!

Hey, it's 2 changes only, the spell resistance itself, and the feat that increase spell resistance (just limit it to be taken three time max, like spell penetration, greater spell penetration and epic(?) spell penetration).

Two changes too many though.

The pricing of the mantle of spell resistance is already broken any way you take it.

Indeed. (Mantle of Epic Spell Resistance that is)

and on the first part, it is a problem that character of similar CR encounter different challenge with a monster of similar CR, due to level variation, and when a character one level before rising in CR face almost the same challenge regarding spell resistance than a character one CR higher, it might be a minor problem, but saying that it's importance lower at higher level won't make it disappear.

But the affects become less and less relevant.

Its like giving someone a million dollars. It means less if the character is already a millionaire and much less if they are already a billionaire.

and you somehow contradict yourself, when you say that you don't want to change thing that aren't obviously broken, regarding CR between level 1 and 20:

It is broken. I have changed it.

It always was broken; I just thought the difference was negligable and that we could get away without touching it because I hadn't determined a simple enough mechanism to deal with it...now I have.

perhaps a level 2 character isn't CR 2, but a CR 2 monster certainly is CR 2 (per WotC way)(well is somewhat CR 2), and it is neither ECL 2 (per your way), as it might be way stronger than a level 2 character in some field (like hiding and such compared to a rogue).

A (WotC) CR2 monster = (My) ECL 2
(My) ECL 2 = CR 4

Effective Character Level IS actual power.

Challenge Rating is about relative power, NOT actual power.

Every time you ascend in Challenge Rating by +2 you are DOUBLING in power!

+2 CR = x2 power
+4 CR = x4 power
+6 CR = x8 power
+8 CR = x16 power

I think that you want to imprint you're personal opinion of dragons on all campaign, while you mentioned previously that you didn't want to do so.

Not at all.

Monte Cook already stated that the dragon challenge ratings were purposefully lowered to make them tougher.

That defeats the whole purpose of challenge ratings in the first place! Secondly its like saying all DMs are too stupid to be able to determine challenges for themselves.

Plus if you want to make all monster SR = CR+11, you could as well give them 50% Magic Resistance, with modifier based on EL (-8CR=-50%MR,+8CR=+50%MR).

I'm serious when I say that some monster are intended with greater or lower resistance, variety is fun in monster abilities, so the formula (old SR-old CR)+new CR would allow to keep this variety.

If you want to retain the original foibles for sentimental reasons thats up to you.

Personally I would rather just leave them alone.

 

[Knight Otu]

Hi Anubis mate!

They are totally unbalanced.

...and unless you are hiding prerequisites somewhere...

...thats effectively +375 hit points at early epic levels.

I believe I have to agree here.

ECL 1-5 = +2 CR
ECL 6-10 = +1 CR
ECL 11-20 = +1/2 CR
ECL 21-40 = +1/4 CR
ECL 41-80 = +1/8 CR
etc.

I have the vague feeling that +2 CR is a bit too high for ECL 1 - 5.

You are being silly.

You are more silly than before.

You are amazingly silly.

You are incredibly silly.

You are preternaturally silly.

Please, calm down.
You don't sound like yourself.