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

[Gez]

Hello UK !

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'

Now, I'm worried. Do you mean that thinngs like regeneration, damage reduction, energy resistance, ranged attack capabilities and movement type will not get factored in your system and up to the DM to adjudicate in the ECL calculations ?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello UK !

Bonjour mon ami!

Now, I'm worried.

You have been listening to Anubis for far too long!

Do you mean that things like regeneration, damage reduction, energy resistance, ranged attack capabilities and movement type will not get factored in your system and up to the DM to adjudicate in the ECL calculations ?

No; all those factors are still taken into account. But remember I am using CR to replace ECL (though they are technically measured the same if you ask me).

What I meant was that situational 'What Ifs' (such as those mentioned on page 102 of the DMG under the 'Difficulty Notes' heading as well as your own 'Monster A vs. Monster B' scenarios) can affect CR beyond any systems capabilities.

Incidently I think I have solved the Spell Resistance dilemma - more in a day or so.

 

[Xeriar]

Hello UK !

Now, I'm worried. Do you mean that thinngs like regeneration, damage reduction, energy resistance, ranged attack capabilities and movement type will not get factored in your system and up to the DM to adjudicate in the ECL calculations ?

The issue you presented is not the only one, by any means. Without access to see invisible (ie, not having prepared it in one form or another), what is a rogue, cleric, fighter and ranger going to do against a flying mage with improved invisibility?

I have actually witnessed 12th level parties unaware of this kind of threat. I kid you not. Add in nondetection for extra fun.

The DMG specifically states not to adjust for situations like this. While a party is generally responsible for its own stupidity, it is all too often the case where the party gets thoroughly deprived of detection spells.

Also, say aforementioned party has been deprived of all magic and must now face said DR 20/+1 monster...

Damage reduction/penetration, invisibility/detection, movement forms/speed, regeneration and elemental subtypes all throw things out of whack, where you have situations where creature A stands no chance against creature B who can't hope to scratch creature C who couldn't harm creature A.

So, unless you plan to build situational sliders for all of that (not saying it's impossible - certainly intriguing!) you have to settle upon some sort of average and build from there.

 

[Anubis]

UK, my problem with your system is not that it's broken, but that you're trying to fix something that isn't! Basically, your system isn't needed.

One MAJOR problem is that you have utterly redefined CR. You use CR as ECL, when CR is supposed to be the challenge on one thing against a party of the same level! In other words, you compare CR X to Party Level X. That is the ONLY way to do it, and that is how the rules state it. You are comparing CR vs. CR for singles, or worse, giving CR to PCs!

You then use EL to replace CR, when EL is the combination of all CRs!

That's two things you have totally redefined. Add to that the myriad of new rules your adding into the mix, and you have a needlessly complex and unnecessary change to the CORE rules!

Honestly, I don't see ANYONE using these rules for Levels 1-20 that you have proposed, except maybe Xeriar. You should have stuck with the ECL/CR revisions for monsters and not ventured into this territory, because now it'll be hard to figure out which of your works to actually consider and which to ignore. The Immotal's Handbook I have waited for a year or more for (and it won't come out for another year or two at this point), and I gave you tons of help on the ECL issue, but now you've completely changeed everything for no reason.

Like I said, unless you can show how the CORE SYSTEM is BROKEN, in ANY WAY, then you have no base. Gez even stated it better than I could have. CR is Challenge Rating. That is a specific defeined term.

 

[-Eä-]

UK, my problem with your system is not that it's broken, but that you're trying to fix something that isn't! Basically, your system isn't needed.

One MAJOR problem is that you have utterly redefined CR. You use CR as ECL, when CR is supposed to be the challenge on one thing against a party of the same level! In other words, you compare CR X to Party Level X. That is the ONLY way to do it, and that is how the rules state it. You are comparing CR vs. CR for singles, or worse, giving CR to PCs!

You then use EL to replace CR, when EL is the combination of all CRs!

That's two things you have totally redefined. Add to that the myriad of new rules your adding into the mix, and you have a needlessly complex and unnecessary change to the CORE rules!

Honestly, I don't see ANYONE using these rules for Levels 1-20 that you have proposed, except maybe Xeriar. You should have stuck with the ECL/CR revisions for monsters and not ventured into this territory, because now it'll be hard to figure out which of your works to actually consider and which to ignore. The Immotal's Handbook I have waited for a year or more for (and it won't come out for another year or two at this point), and I gave you tons of help on the ECL issue, but now you've completely changeed everything for no reason.

Like I said, unless you can show how the CORE SYSTEM is BROKEN, in ANY WAY, then you have no base. Gez even stated it better than I could have. CR is Challenge Rating. That is a specific defeined term.

Personally, for the campaign I'm DMing (as opposed to the one in which I'm playing), I won't use many of the rules UK has proposed. I will use some rules that fits my campaing better, but I see nothing wrong in proposing changes in the rules in the IH. Certainly many will not use all or any of the changes, but it is important to point out one's own stance on things, as it reflects on what basis the system has been developed.

For instance, if you give a set of conclusions without giving its basis, the results will on average be refused or neglected, but if you present a set of N premises, the same set of conclusions may not be neglected or refused. If you know the set of premises you may on that basis change the conclusions to what suits your needs without much problem.

The definition of CR given by WotC is vague at best, even as the try to be clear. There is no point in defining a value compared to a unmeasurable value, which is what they have tried to do.
WotC isn't particularily good at defining things, and this is why it's so easy to "abuse" many powers, issues and spells found in the Core Rulebooks.

While I use a slightly different system than UK in determining CRs, UK provides a better definition than WotC, and while that is not necessary for many DMs as they use different systems anyhow, it will give guidelines for younger and more inexperienced DMs (see kids) to not unbalance things entirely.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anubis mate!

UK, my problem with your system is not that it's broken, but that you're trying to fix something that isn't! Basically, your system isn't needed.

Every change I advocate is either a necessity or an adjustment that will significantly benefit a campaign.

A fact which seems to be falling on deaf ears.

One MAJOR problem is that you have utterly redefined CR. You use CR as ECL, when CR is supposed to be the challenge on one thing against a party of the same level! In other words, you compare CR X to Party Level X. That is the ONLY way to do it, and that is how the rules state it. You are comparing CR vs. CR for singles, or worse, giving CR to PCs!

I noticed that taking definitions literally was confusing to some of you. Hence the reason I made the recent changes.

You then use EL to replace CR, when EL is the combination of all CRs!

Actually EL is a measure of relative power.

Doubling the difficulty of an encounter (such as doubling the number of opponents) increases the EL by 2.

My argument (as it has always been) is that the higher you ascend the less effect CR has upon EL.

That's two things you have totally redefined.

Considering I have revised my terminology so that 'Challenge Ratings' are once again the average Party CR for an appropriate challenge whereupon the party should succeed using 20-25% of their resources...

...means thats only one thing I have supposedly redefined.

Given that Encounter Level does not parallel Challenge Rating (making it a necessary addendum); while even under my auspices it still follows the tenet of:

'Doubling the difficulty of an encounter (such as doubling the number of opponents) increases the EL by 2'.

...means that the concept is not so much redefined as 'defined'.

Add to that the myriad of new rules your adding into the mix, and you have a needlessly complex and unnecessary change to the CORE rules!

Nothing is needlessly complex. There are no unnecessary changes - other than that your above statement is fairly accurate.

However, I believe the phrase 'you don't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs' is entirely appropriate here.

Honestly, I don't see ANYONE using these rules for Levels 1-20 that you have proposed, except maybe Xeriar.

They are modular (and therefore optional); though advocated.

Its not by blind chance that either way CR 20 = EL 20.

Honestly, I don't see ANYONE using these rules for Levels 1-20 that you have proposed, except maybe Xeriar.

In which case I anticipate Xeriar's Campaign to have less Encounter Level problems than others.

You should have stuck with the ECL/CR revisions for monsters and not ventured into this territory, because now it'll be hard to figure out which of your works to actually consider and which to ignore.

They do say 'ignorance is bliss'.

The Immotal's Handbook I have waited for a year or more for (and it won't come out for another year or two at this point),

Thanks, way to stay positive!

and I gave you tons of help on the ECL issue, but now you've completely changeed everything for no reason.

Your help was invaluable, and appreciated - your recent 'meanderings' less so.

...and I haven't completely changed everything (as you suppose), nor have I done anything for no reason (as you prescribe) - other than that your above statement is fairly accurate.

Like I said, unless you can show how the CORE SYSTEM is BROKEN, in ANY WAY, then you have no base.

A 2nd-level character is twice as powerful as a 1st-level character.

A 5th-level character is vastly more powerful than four 1st-level characters

A 20th-level character is not equal to four 16th-level characters.

Gez even stated it better than I could have. CR is Challenge Rating. That is a specific defeined term.

You don't seem to be keeping up with current events.

I revised my work to give people CR the WotC way.

 

[poilbrun]

I will just answer a few things, since I believe my opinion is not needed on many subjects talked about here...

A 2nd-level character is twice as powerful as a 1st-level character..

Not true according to WotC, since they say a 1st-level character is CR 1 and a 2nd-level character is CR 2. According to them, an encounter against a 1st-level character would be EL 1 and an encounter against a 2nd-level character would be EL 2. WotC thus do not consider a 2nd-level character to be twice as powerful as a 1st-level character, because if it was so, an encounter against a 2nd-level character would need to have an EL equal to an encounter against a 1st-level character +2, which it does not.

UK, you said the following :

CR 1 = EL 2
CR 2 = EL 4

This would seem to take care of the problem, since an encounter against a CR 2 would be equal to an encounter against an CR 1 + 2. What I wonder is why a CR 1 is not EL 1.

A 5th-level character is vastly more powerful than four 1st-level characters.

Here's the one where the true problem lies IMHO. Any one of these two encounters would have an EL 5 according to WotC.

If you take a party of 4 1st-level characters, they'll have approximately 50% chances of survival against 4 1st-level characters. 50% chances of survival means that the EL should be (avg. party level + 4). The CR 5 is thus justified if this encounter is for a party of 4 1st-level characters.
If you take a party of 4 5th-level characters, they'll use less than 20-25% of their resources to win the fight. An encounter for which a party uses 20-25% of its resources should have an EL equal to the avg. party level. Since the 5th-level party uses less than 20-25% of its resources, the EL of the encounter should be less than 5, which it isn't, at least according to WotC.

If you take a party of 4 5th-level characters, they'll probably use 20-25% of their resources to win the fight. Which means this encounter should have an EL equal to the avg. party level, which it has. OK so far.
If you take a party of 4 1st-level, they have less than 50% chances of survival against one 5th-level character. The EL should thus be higher than avg. party level + 4, which isn't the case.

A 20th-level character is not equal to four 16th-level characters.

This one is nearly the same as the one before, except it's the other way around. These two encounters would have an EL 20 according to WotC.

A party of 4 16th-level characters would have more than 50% chances of survival against one 20th-level character. So the EL should be less than avg. party level + 4.
A party of 4 20th-level characters would use 20-25% of their resources against a 20th-level character (that's more or less always the case when a party of a given level fights one character of the same level). This would mean that the encounter should be EL 20.

A party of 4 16th-level character would have 50% chances of survival against 4 16th-level characters. Which means the EL for this encounter should be avg. party level + 4, which is the case.
A party of 4 20th-level characters would certainly have to use more than 20-25% of their resources in an encounter against 4 16th-level characters, which means that the EL should be higher than avg. party level.


My conclusions :
1. Better for UK than for me to create a CR system that works. But I'll probably use his system if it ends up to be better than the one by WotC.
2. The system is clearly broken, even though I was happy to use it as is, making calls myself when I had to plan an encounter or give XP after it.

PS : Bear with me if there are any grammatical errors in what I wrote, but it's 6 am here and I still haven't slept...

 

[S'mon]

Sometimes I wonder if people here actually read the DMG CR table. According to it, 2 CR 1 opponents is CR 2, NOT CR 3! IE WoTC themselves say that 1 level 2 character is equal to 2 level 1 characters. The 'double power = +2 CR' rule only kicks in from level 4. That's why the bottom of the table looks odd.

 

[poilbrun]

Sometimes I wonder if people here actually read the DMG CR table. According to it, 2 CR 1 opponents is CR 2, NOT CR 3! IE WoTC themselves say that 1 level 2 character is equal to 2 level 1 characters. The 'double power = +2 CR' rule only kicks in from level 4. That's why the bottom of the table looks odd.

You're quite right... If you look at table 4-1 on page 101 of the dmg, it is clearly stated that an encounter with two monsters of CR 1 is EL2. However, this table seems to have problems for the EL of encounters with only one monster. For example, they say that an EL 19 encounter might consist of either one CR 18, one CR 19 or one CR 20 monster. I wonder why an encounter with a CR 18 would be EL 19? There are other flaws in this table. For example, an EL 8 encounter might consist of 8 to 12 CR 1.

Anyway, sorry for the mixup. This would probably mean that there is even less need for a change since in the first example I commented above, WotC already say that a 2nd-level character is twice as powerful as a 1st-level.

 

[S'mon]

The EL table is just a rough approximation though, the CR table, being for individual monsters only, is more precise (whether you agree with it or not - I think the way CR1 goes from 200XP at 8th level to * at 9th is too big a jump).