D&D 3E/3.5 v4: Challenge Ratings pdf (3.5 compatible)

[Upper_Krust]

Hey xanatos mate!

AC and Attack should be a single line valued +0.2/point (as it's in the MM3.5)

I can see that confusing people.

Reach should be +/- 0.5 per 5 feets above/below 5 ft (it's a quantized unit, the feet... DnD use blocks of 5 feets)

I'm thinking that Reach should be +/- 0.2/5 ft.

Space should be +/- 0.1/size category difference from medium.

??? If you need a bigger sword, then you are larger... Hercules can't use Huge Swords!

If your weight allowance is doubled but you are still the same size then your equipment weighs the same but you can carry much more sundrie items (gp etc.)

Another small problem: Do you consider Colossal Creatures to be 6x6 (as in standard MM3.5) with a Reach of 6 squares (so probably they should get an extra 0.2 for size over the "linear" (5x5) one + the 6 hexes Reach) or 5x5 with 5 reach?

Reach should be 30 ft. I think.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

Okay I have been working away on v4.1 and v4.2 - the reformatting is taking a bit longer than usual.

I must say I do like Wulfs new EL ideas, much simpler.

As ever though the devil is in the details, so its not quite finished just yet.

However, I was just thinking that the revised CR scores (for v4.2) may not be so problematic since all you need to do add the ability scores given and remove any size modifiers to ability scores. Of course I still don't plan on undertaking the entire endeavour myself, but I would have thought a small team of people (including myself) working on the problem could divide the monsters up and have all the scores revised in a day...say a page each; so we need four volunteers.

 

[Kavon]

Hiya mate!

Hey U_K

Must have missed this post.

Ah, don't worry about it

I don't know - you are a pioneer here.

Yeah, I guess that's true
Hmm.. Well, I'll be explaining this to my friends tomorrow or something, so I guess I'll ask them what they think about it.

Sound like dice people to me.

Yeah, they sure are
I think I could just use both methods.
Individual HP buying would ensure you get the HP.
Dice HP buying will have a chance of being higher or lower, so this would be the 'gamble for your XP' choice, or something

You could still give them the racial traits for free.

Yeah, I realized yesterday evening that they'd need to pick a race, and the races are premade already (with maybe a little freedom here and there, but it'll be a package either way. Anomalies could occur of course, so I'll use a loose hand when they pick their race.

Where theres a will theres a way.

Hmm... Yeah, I guess I'll figure something out.

I wouldn't have them 'spend' EXP (they might need that for spellcasting and the like) I would just let them choose the abilities commensurate with their 'level'.

Hmm... I think it would fit for me, since I prefer to think of XP as something you spend permanently (something you have to pay XP for, but isn't permanent, isn't truely worth the XP, IMO. So I'd change that to a GP cost, or a temporary XP penalty or something allong those lines).
It's like.. If someone gained 1000XP, their character level is increased to 2 irrelevant of what they spent it on (as long as it's permanent, it increases their value and power as a character). This is what I believe to be the best way to handle XP.

Gold is something that can be won or lost, so it makes it more loose in the long shot.
Just have a player gamble a bit, and win allot, they'll get allot more then they should have for their level (it wouldn't be fair to restrict them on this, since it would only be realistic that they should be able to do stuff like that). This is probably also why I have trouble trying to figure out a way for them to get things with material value for XP, while not creating it themselves. XP is not something material. It's the experience of the body, of the mind.
The only way I can think of handling that right now is to let them pay for an 'allowed total GP value' like thing, but then I'd still need to restrict them when they reach the limit. I know I could just say 'NO', and wave the DM stick around, but I know it doesn't make sense to restrict them like that. It's an arguement that I cannot win with my players, because I agree with them, so I need to make it work somehow.

I know I probably have a weird way of viewing XP and GP stuff, but the alternative makes things unbalanced too quickly. For example.. If someone writes a scroll, they spend XP on it. They use the scroll, and they will have lost the XP forever, while their teammates still have the XP. All that for one one-time spell. The scroll writer will be behind on the rest, but they gained the exact same amount of XP. This is why I believe that for whatever the player pays XP for, it should be permanent, or it should return the XP that was spent when the thing that it was used on is useless.

Hmm... I guess I could let them get GP value in advance, and any future XP will be forced to be put in there untill they paid it off. If they lose GP value, I'll just free some XP up for them? GP value is temporary like a scroll.. So the XP they spent on it should also be temporarily spent in that way.
Hmm... Ranting helps me think of things it seems

Edit: Hmm... Would it be possible to somehow get to know how you built all the classes? As in.. How much you ranked for everything? It would be very usefull to use as an example to see how to do things exactly. I'd be mostly guessing at some things without it.

Hmm... There was something else... Oh yeah. With spell-like abilities and the like.. One of the multipliers has spell level. Allot of abilities have the spell level tied to the character level.. How would I take this into account?

 

[xanatos]

I've sent you an email to agooddesigner@hotmail.com with a pre-alpha of the spreadsheet!

--- Bye

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I'm in!

Hi all!

Okay I have been working away on v4.1 and v4.2 - the reformatting is taking a bit longer than usual.

I must say I do like Wulfs new EL ideas, much simpler.

As ever though the devil is in the details, so its not quite finished just yet.

However, I was just thinking that the revised CR scores (for v4.2) may not be so problematic since all you need to do add the ability scores given and remove any size modifiers to ability scores. Of course I still don't plan on undertaking the entire endeavour myself, but I would have thought a small team of people (including myself) working on the problem could divide the monsters up and have all the scores revised in a day...say a page each; so we need four volunteers.

Hey Krust!

You can count me in! Just tell where to begin and where to end and I'll get started right away.

Only fair since I've been one of the more insistent on ability modifiers being included.

As you say, I don't think it'll be problematic. Just subtract ability modifiers from size from listed CR and calculate the monster in question's modifiers and compare to size standard. Voila!
Only question is: should the current CR rating (fx +1.2 for Large) still be used and then the difference added/subtracted, or should the calculation be from scratch?

See ya.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I must say I do like Wulfs new EL ideas, much simpler.

As ever though the devil is in the details, so its not quite finished just yet.

However, I was just thinking that the revised CR scores (for v4.2) may not be so problematic since all you need to do add the ability scores given and remove any size modifiers to ability scores. Of course I still don't plan on undertaking the entire endeavour myself, but I would have thought a small team of people (including myself) working on the problem could divide the monsters up and have all the scores revised in a day...say a page each; so we need four volunteers.

I should also volunteer, I know, but I just have too much on my plate at the moment trying to finish up Grim Tales. I fear my brain is pretty fried at the moment, I don't trust myself around "complex" math like addition and subtraction!

If you give me very specific directions, and all the monsters are from MMI 3.5, and you think I can do it in just a couple of hours, then I will be happy to help.

I am glad you like the EL calculations-- I am very gratified to have contributed something back to what I consider a piece of very brilliant design.

Wulf

 

[ciaran00]

I know I probably have a weird way of viewing XP and GP stuff, but the alternative makes things unbalanced too quickly. For example.. If someone writes a scroll, they spend XP on it. They use the scroll, and they will have lost the XP forever, while their teammates still have the XP. All that for one one-time spell. The scroll writer will be behind on the rest, but they gained the exact same amount of XP. This is why I believe that for whatever the player pays XP for, it should be permanent, or it should return the XP that was spent when the thing that it was used on is useless.

This is not very consistent. Say a player makes a weapon, and then it eventually fails (say it's a Wand of Fire). He is still left without XP, yes? What if the player uses the scroll to break into a vault to gain an item that balances (or greatly unbalances) him from the rest of the party? What if the player lives because he made a fireball scroll and used it to save his life (because he ran out of spells)? Isn't surviving imminent death otherwise a permanent effect bestowed by the scroll which is justifiable by a permanent tap of XP?

Aren't wands like scrolls that eventually run out too? What about a ring of free action inside an antimagic shell? A player scarfs down a bag of chips shouldn't get refunded after he's done because he's now taken care of his hunger.

Also, the player is making this choice. If it's not worth it to him to make a scroll then he shouldn't. Point is, that he is... he wants his character to be more effective... and if he wants it in THIS particular fashion then he HAS to pay with XP. No refunds.

ciaran

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey U_K

Hiya mate!

Yeah, I guess that's true
Hmm.. Well, I'll be explaining this to my friends tomorrow or something, so I guess I'll ask them what they think about it.

Okay.

Yeah, they sure are

Tell them I said hi!

I think I could just use both methods.
Individual HP buying would ensure you get the HP.
Dice HP buying will have a chance of being higher or lower, so this would be the 'gamble for your XP' choice, or something

Well the problem with simply using individual hit points (rather than HD) is that you don't gain the benefit of any CON bonuses.

So it might be best to keep HD rather than hp.

Yeah, I realized yesterday evening that they'd need to pick a race, and the races are premade already (with maybe a little freedom here and there, but it'll be a package either way. Anomalies could occur of course, so I'll use a loose hand when they pick their race.

Okay.

Hmm... I think it would fit for me, since I prefer to think of XP as something you spend permanently (something you have to pay XP for, but isn't permanent, isn't truely worth the XP, IMO. So I'd change that to a GP cost, or a temporary XP penalty or something allong those lines).

It's like.. If someone gained 1000XP, their character level is increased to 2 irrelevant of what they spent it on (as long as it's permanent, it increases their value and power as a character). This is what I believe to be the best way to handle XP.

Gold is something that can be won or lost, so it makes it more loose in the long shot.
Just have a player gamble a bit, and win allot, they'll get allot more then they should have for their level (it wouldn't be fair to restrict them on this, since it would only be realistic that they should be able to do stuff like that). This is probably also why I have trouble trying to figure out a way for them to get things with material value for XP, while not creating it themselves. XP is not something material. It's the experience of the body, of the mind.
The only way I can think of handling that right now is to let them pay for an 'allowed total GP value' like thing, but then I'd still need to restrict them when they reach the limit. I know I could just say 'NO', and wave the DM stick around, but I know it doesn't make sense to restrict them like that. It's an arguement that I cannot win with my players, because I agree with them, so I need to make it work somehow.

I know I probably have a weird way of viewing XP and GP stuff, but the alternative makes things unbalanced too quickly. For example.. If someone writes a scroll, they spend XP on it. They use the scroll, and they will have lost the XP forever, while their teammates still have the XP. All that for one one-time spell. The scroll writer will be behind on the rest, but they gained the exact same amount of XP. This is why I believe that for whatever the player pays XP for, it should be permanent, or it should return the XP that was spent when the thing that it was used on is useless.

Hmm... I guess I could let them get GP value in advance, and any future XP will be forced to be put in there untill they paid it off. If they lose GP value, I'll just free some XP up for them? GP value is temporary like a scroll.. So the XP they spent on it should also be temporarily spent in that way.
Hmm... Ranting helps me think of things it seems

Edit: Hmm... Would it be possible to somehow get to know how you built all the classes? As in.. How much you ranked for everything? It would be very usefull to use as an example to see how to do things exactly. I'd be mostly guessing at some things without it.

Everythings balanced with regards either feats or with what should be the average for a feat over 20 levels (as with the +6 hit points deviating from the Toughness feat).

Hmm... There was something else... Oh yeah. With spell-like abilities and the like.. One of the multipliers has spell level. Allot of abilities have the spell level tied to the character level.. How would I take this into account?

Well your caster level would be the same as your CR (which is going to be the same as level if you maintain the core EXP progression)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi xanatos mate!

I've sent you an email to agooddesigner@hotmail.com with a pre-alpha of the spreadsheet!

I got that but (as I mentioned in my email) I couldn't open it because theres a problem with my copy of Excel (which was letting me open the previous XL files people have sent, but not this one). I'll try and get hold of another copy over the weekend.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Krust!

Hiya mate!

You can count me in! Just tell where to begin and where to end and I'll get started right away.

Okay, I'll tell you what to do exactly at the bottom of this post.

Only fair since I've been one of the more insistent on ability modifiers being included.

Indeed! I hold you personally responsible.

Only question is: should the current CR rating (fx +1.2 for Large) still be used and then the difference added/subtracted, or should the calculation be from scratch?

I have changed all the Size modifiers in this latest version.

Here are the new Size Mods without ability scores (for use below):

Fine: +0.45
Diminutive: -0.2
Tiny: -0.45
Small: +/-0
Med: +/-0
Large: +0.4
Huge: +0.7
Gargantuan: +1
Colossal: +1
Colossal +: +2.1

As you say, I don't think it'll be problematic. Just subtract ability modifiers from size from listed CR and calculate the monster in question's modifiers and compare to size standard. Voila!

Heres what you need to do:

1. Subtract old size modifier
2. Add new size modifier (without ability scores; see above)
3. Factor all ability scores (+0.1 per point over 10; -0.1 per point below 10)
4. Recalculate Golden Rule
5. Recalculate Silver Rule

eg. Aboleth 12.852
1. Subract previous Huge Modifier (-2.4) = 10.452
2. New Huge mod. without Ability Scores (+0.7) = 11.152
3. Factor all ability scores (+4.7) = 15.852
4. Recalculate Golden Rule 15.852 - 8.8* = 7.052 (divide by 2) = 3.526 + 8.8 = 12.326 (12)
5. Recalculate Silver Rule (x0.85) = 10

So the Aboleth would be:
Base: 15.852
Golden Rule: 12.326 (12)
Silver Rule: 10

Your mission should you choose to accept it is to detail all the letter 'A's except the Aboleth (obviously) and the example monsters (Aboleth Mage; Hound Archon Hero) which are not OGL compliant.

NB. Remember when doing Constructs or Undead to remove the original No-Constitution size bonus.

I'll see how you get on after the letter 'A's.

Have fun.