D&D 3.x v4: Challenge Ratings pdf (3.5 compatible)

[Matrix Sorcica]

Well what you want to do is match ECL (with Equipment) and Equipment Level.

So if something is CR 7 we know that adding seven levels of equipment will make it ECL 8.4 (7 + 1.4)*, we want to try it with eight levels of equipment.

*8 (ECL) is not the same as 7 (levels of equipment).

Kreynolds,

I'm doing it the hard cranky way because that was how Old Krusty did it himself in v.3 (in the troll ECL for regeneration example).

It is still the way, right UK?

Later,

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Hiya mate!
1. Your new method for determining multiple opponent EL.

What happens if you have a Great Wyrm Red Dragon (CR 59) and 15 Skeletons (CR +10)

CR 69 = EL 25

16 characters = EL -8. So that would be EL 17.

So a great red wyrm with multiple weaker opponents actually rates weaker than such a dragon on its own!?

Or did I miss something?

Easily fixed using your own guidelines.

Individual EL -9 or worse opponents have a notably weakened impact on proceedings. Whereas EL -17 or worse opponents have virtually no impact on proceedings.

So, it seems you can discount creatures less than ECL -8 (or -16) off the lead creature.

It's a rather extreme example you've chosen, at any rate; even your own current rules couldn't account for that one, neh?

2. Your new method for determining experience points.

If you have party size along the top and EL difference along the side (on the table) there is no room for CR/Level. Doesn't that mean that DMs/PCs will have to multiply for every level other than 1st. Whereas at least my Table gives them 30 levels to simply 'look up' and apply a figure. I am not yet convinced if your updated table for EXP is actually better/simpler and therefore necessary.

It's not simpler; but in certain circumstances, it is definitely better. The table breaks down XP for each individual in a combatant group.

You could either multiply the figure in each column by the party's total CR, and divide by the number of characters; or you could multiply that same figure by each individual's CR. The difference is that in case 1, the low level characters get more than their fair share of XP: their contribution to the fight is not equal to their gain from the fight.

What individual XP awards would allow you to do, for example, is take a party that combines, say, the PCs, a couple of NPCs (for whom XP is irrelevant, they're just temporary additions through the story), and even stuff like a few animals (warhorses or war dogs) or even monsters that are along for the ride. You can then take this group's total CR-- all PCs, all NPCs, all animals, all combatants-- to find the relative EL of the encounter. However, when you go to figure XP, you can give each PC his correct share of the XP (his CR x the listed amount).

You don't have to calculate the XP for the NPCs and the added creatures, though it's a certainty that those allies had an effect on the EL.

In terms of actual play, rather than the DM looking up the total value and dividing it out per player, he simply looks up my value and says, "Guys, you each get XXX per level."

And finally, the strongest improvement for it is that it allows you to give players with "special abilities" or other "level adjustment" type stuff an increase in power without actually having to use the "level adjustment" mechanic. Take the example of the Troll character. His total CR is about 9, though his character level is 1. In this example, his total CR contributes to the EL of the encounter. However, when you go to award him XP, he receives XP based on his character level, not his total CR. You can totally throw out the ECL/LA mechanic. All you need to know is a character's total CR (to track his contribution to relative EL) and his Level (for XP awards).

The XP award can, thus, be looked at as not "per CR" (though that is how I wrote it) but "per level." (XP is only relevant to creatures that track xp, and only creatures with levels must do that.)

Does that make any more sense?


Wulf

 

[kreynolds]

Well what you want to do is match ECL (with Equipment) and Equipment Level.

Of course. It's just really clunky, something you may have to apply again, and again, and again, which makes for a very strange mechanic. It's kinda like the name George. When you spell out the name, it just never ends...

G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-
G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-
O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-
R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E-O-R-G-E

Edit: because you were messing up the entire thread. -Dinkeldog

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

snip

[ralph]
You broke my wookie!
[/ralph]

 

[xanatos]

Yesm but sometimes you use 1,63 as the adder to the attributes, and sometimes 2,63. What is the 1 point?

For the life of me I cannot actually remember - I am sure there was a good reason at the time.
I think the Lycanthrope Template breakdown may be slightly off (I would imagine Damage Reduction is definately incorrect).

So you'll probably have to recheck it!

Then why in ability scores you write: When do Ability Scores affect Challenge Rating? ...As part of the Size factor...

I wrote that because that was the question everyone asked me. I subsequently list all the answers.

What do you mean with "I subsequently list all the answers"?
I gave a lot of thought yesterday with Sizes... What table are U using for size? Are you using the "Changes to Statistics by Size" table of the 3.5 MM p. 292? The one that you have to use to make a monster bigger?
Because it's very complex to use that that table if you are building a monster from scratch.
I think you should include in the Size only Reach, Weight Multiplier and AC bonus/malus for Size. Natural Armor, STR, CON and DEX should be bought separately, even because you don't always apply them (look at the Ooze, Elder Gargantuan Green Jelly (or something similar)... It doesn't have a Natural Armor. And then there is another problem: your CR rules will be probably used for three things:
- building monster from scratch
- calculating the CR of an existing monster
- calculating the CR of a beefed monster
Now... If you build a monster from scratch you decide his attributes and armor (probably looking at the table Creature Size, Scores and Damage, p. 297 of MM 3.5). It's surely easyer to simply multiply the total attributes - the base attributes * 0,1 CR. With your method you'll have to subtract the "free points" before multiplying (so it's more difficult)
If you have to calculate the CR of an existing monster, it's the same... You have final attributes, you don't get the attributes without size.

As a note: what are the characteristics of Colossal+,Colossal++,Colossal+++? What do you get "for free"?

You should write that Armor is "free" when you buy ability scores (probably under Armor)...

I don't understand you here mate?

Read "ability scores" = "size" and "mate" = "stupid"!

And perhaps write somewhere the cost of Reach (I could build a small tentacled monster with reach)

Okay, so you would like to see a breakdown of the individual components of what make up the size factors. Fair point.

This could be a solution.... You wrote the breakdown for races/monster types...

My point was that if you put a note somewhere, then you must put it everywhere.

Again this returns to the question of space.

Then put it at the beginning or in an appendix, so you save simmetry and space!

--- Bye

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think I have to agree.

The Size category shouldn't include anything that is bought in a seperate factors (Str, Con, natural armor). It will simplify your Size table, and it will definitely simplify the work for a DM trying to track down all the changes when he increases size or builds from scratch.

Size should include changes to AC, reach, maybe space (although I am not sure why that would increase CR) and some accomodation for the increase in base attack damage (natural or manufactured).

Which, now that I mention it, is a better place for the "average combat damage" factor to be included than in Full Attack. I was much happier with Full Attack being calculated on BAB than on average damage. It makes no sense to change the CR of a Giant just because he happens to drop his Huge dagger and draws his Huge greatsword. (The CR difference for this single factor changes by almost x3!)

UK, I'll say this: I'd rather have the framework be as good as possible than have stats for all of the monsters, if that is holding you back on improvements.

And I would love comments on my reply above from yesterday-- does it make any more sense?

Wulf

 

[kreynolds]

Edit: because you were messing up the entire thread. -Dinkeldog

Weird. Didn't see anything wrong on my end. Does it get messed up on low resolutions or something?

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Howdy all.

I just got word from Upper_Krust over MSN that he cannot post on EN World (and by extension, any internet forum), nor send e-mails, due to catastophic network problems he is experiencing in Ireland. The Krust assures me that he will address all your posts and e-mails ASAP once these problems have cleared up. I now resume you back to your regular programming.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Okay I'm back...and this time its personal!

Howdy all.

I just got word from Upper_Krust over MSN that he cannot post on EN World (and by extension, any internet forum), nor send e-mails, due to catastophic network problems he is experiencing in Ireland. The Krust assures me that he will address all your posts and e-mails ASAP once these problems have cleared up. I now resume you back to your regular programming.

Thanks for helping out there mate.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya Wulf mate!

...hope you just got my email?

Easily fixed using your own guidelines.

Which ones (I have so many guidelines I tend to lose track)?

I was simply thinking of a caveat whereby (obviously) no monster could have its group EL lowered beneath its individual EL? Feels a bit clumsy though - what do you think?

So, it seems you can discount creatures less than ECL -8 (or -16) off the lead creature.

It's a rather extreme example you've chosen, at any rate; even your own current rules couldn't account for that one, neh?

I suppose you could create a Human Swarm; or Balor Swarm to challenge the appropriate epic and immortal individuals respectively.

It's not simpler; but in certain circumstances, it is definitely better. The table breaks down XP for each individual in a combatant group.

You could either multiply the figure in each column by the party's total CR, and divide by the number of characters; or you could multiply that same figure by each individual's CR. The difference is that in case 1, the low level characters get more than their fair share of XP: their contribution to the fight is not equal to their gain from the fight.

What individual XP awards would allow you to do, for example, is take a party that combines, say, the PCs, a couple of NPCs (for whom XP is irrelevant, they're just temporary additions through the story), and even stuff like a few animals (warhorses or war dogs) or even monsters that are along for the ride. You can then take this group's total CR-- all PCs, all NPCs, all animals, all combatants-- to find the relative EL of the encounter. However, when you go to figure XP, you can give each PC his correct share of the XP (his CR x the listed amount).

You don't have to calculate the XP for the NPCs and the added creatures, though it's a certainty that those allies had an effect on the EL.

In terms of actual play, rather than the DM looking up the total value and dividing it out per player, he simply looks up my value and says, "Guys, you each get XXX per level."

And finally, the strongest improvement for it is that it allows you to give players with "special abilities" or other "level adjustment" type stuff an increase in power without actually having to use the "level adjustment" mechanic. Take the example of the Troll character. His total CR is about 9, though his character level is 1. In this example, his total CR contributes to the EL of the encounter. However, when you go to award him XP, he receives XP based on his character level, not his total CR. You can totally throw out the ECL/LA mechanic. All you need to know is a character's total CR (to track his contribution to relative EL) and his Level (for XP awards).

The XP award can, thus, be looked at as not "per CR" (though that is how I wrote it) but "per level." (XP is only relevant to creatures that track xp, and only creatures with levels must do that.)

Does that make any more sense?

Yes. I get it now. I agree with your point, you have convinced me.