• NOW LIVE! -- One-Page Adventures for D&D 5th Edition on Kickstarter! A booklet of colourful one-page adventures for D&D 5th Edition ranging from levels 1-9 and designed for a single session of play.
log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

Zhnov

First Post
Upper_Krust said:
Hi Orlic matey! :)

Off the top of my head I seem to recall DvR 0 was about ECL +20 by my reckoning and DvR 1 was about ECL +30 with each subsequent DvR an extra +2-3 or so.

I should probably outline the D&Dg divinity ECL in a website article, I'll see what I can come up with over the weekend. ;)

Thanks UK, the numbers help a great deal - lets me know that generally I was on the right track.

Upper_Krust said:
Take care mate! :)

You also. Thanks for being a leader to redefine high-end gaming.

~O.p.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

bykov

First Post
Integrated Spell Levels

I apologize for ressurecting such an old thread, but the topic was what I was looking for. I have been trying to decipher Upper_Crust's Integrated Spell Levels so that I could apply them to the psionic classes. Has anyone made any headway on this?

In reading this thread the concept of available spells seems to be more of a red herring as the relative value would drastically adjust both the Sorcerer and the Bard.

I did go through and apply the spell like abilities from section 9 to the 20th level of each class and then divided by twenty and this is what I got [v.5 values in brackets]:

Ranger/Paladin: 0.015 [0.02]
Cleric: 0.243 [0.38]
Bard: 0.086 [0.15]
Druid: 0.198 [0.28]
Wizard: 0.182 [0.44]
Sorcerer: 0.273 [0.44]

So just based on spell casting ability the number relationships put the sorcerer, druid, & cleric above the wizard.

Obviouosly, I am a bit off base, but any other attempts to apply the formula from page 36/37 of this thread or any other factors I glean just go haywire.

So I was just wondering if anyone else has made any headway in the calculations and justifications for the v.4 & v.5 Intergrated Spell Level calculations.

THank You!
Bykov.
 

bykov

First Post
Well, based on the 'erroneous' results, I spec'd out Psion under the assumption that a Psion could cast 20 - 9th level powers at 17 points each (with 3 points to spare).

[.001 × 9 × 20] × 20 = .180

Slightly less powerful than the wizard [.182]

What gets me, is if Integrated Spell Levels were a function of caster level and spell/power strength, one would assume that there would be a proportionality between the values.

This got me thinking about the available spell theory on pages 36/37 of this thread. Sorcerer & Wizard have primarily (not entirely) the same spells to pull from, yet their values I calculated are vastly different; .273 and .182 respectively.

Now if we took the spells known between those two classes, we would get 60 for the wizard (number of spells in book) and 43 for the sorcerer. Virtually inversely proportionate, allowing for a constant variable to be used to get the correct number.

However, how would this factor against the cleric, druid, ranger, & paladin?

Sorry for the rambles...
Bykov.
 




I apologize for ressurecting such an old thread, but the topic was what I was looking for. I have been trying to decipher Upper_Crust's Integrated Spell Levels so that I could apply them to the psionic classes. Has anyone made any headway on this?

I'd be curious to know this as well. I think you're more likely to get an answer though if you post in the Hosted Forum section where Upper_Krust hangs out (Eternity Publishing). Just make a new thread there asking about Psionics and the CR system and he'll probably pop up; there's a few other folks that might have some input there as well. The forum is here:
Eternity Publishing Hosted Forum - EN World D&D / RPG News

http://www.enworld.org/forum/attach...94563-thoughts-challenge-rating-system-v5.pdf

v6 never made it out, despite all the promises is was coming soon. :(

Bykov.

I asked about it a couple of years ago and again a couple of months ago. This was his response to my couple of months ago inquiry:

Howdy Scurvy! :)

I am sure I have explained numerous times what the changes to v6 are. The mechanical changes are very simple and take about two minutes to implement.

The mechanical differences in Version 6

1) Apply the Silver Rule to all factor totals, not just factor totals less than 20.

NB. Previously, Factor Totals above 20 were supposed to simply subtract 3 rather than apply the x0.833 Silver Rule modifier.

2) Challenge Rating is no longer CR x2 = EL +4, its now CR x2 = EL +8.

NB. The minor added confusion on this is that its balanced to 3.5E Spellcaster Classes (which are more powerful), rather than the Martial Classes*. If you wanted to use a party of solely 3.5E Martial Classes then either change to my revised classes (using those as a guide to do the ones I haven't fixed) or use CR x2 = EL +6.

*See my website for Revised Martial Classes which bring them up to balance.

Immortality

The hold-up on any new v6 document (aside from my general apathy on the matter) is basically one of nomenclature. In effect changing all the terms so that the whole thing isn't confusing, so that 'Challenge Rating' isn't mentioned in place of the arbitrary numerical 'Factor' that eventually gets turned into Effective Class Level and subsequently Challenge Rating.

UK really has almost no interest in 3.x now. He'll probably be able to get you pointed in the direction you need to go for psionics, but anything further to do with the CR system is probably a lost cause. Still, it's awesome he did all this work already and it's certainly a good enough tool for any of us system hackers.
 

bykov

First Post
UK really has almost no interest in 3.x now. He'll probably be able to get you pointed in the direction you need to go for psionics, but anything further to do with the CR system is probably a lost cause. Still, it's awesome he did all this work already and it's certainly a good enough tool for any of us system hackers.


I agree completely. His work has enabled me to do so much just in terms of monster creation, conversion, and balancing out my encounters its sick. I also find myself disagreeing with certain items, but he supplied the tools for me to come up with those objections and then in turn create (IMHO) better solutions.

Bykov.
 

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
The actual derivation of those caster levels was never answered, that I could find, so I just used my own number and then adjusted the results with the TLAR methodology.

I used (max spell level) x (total number of spell levels/day) x .005 / 20.

This got me thinking about the available spell theory on pages 36/37 of this thread. Now if we took the spells known between those two classes, we would get 60 for the wizard (number of spells in book) and 43 for the sorcerer. Virtually inversely proportionate, allowing for a constant variable to be used to get the correct number.

Bad methodology in my opinion, FWIW.

CR is meant to determine combat effectiveness. There's simply no way that the limited (!) number of spells known for the sorcerer limits his combat effectiveness vis a vis the wizard-- certainly not to that degree. He'll operate according to "best practices" and so pick the best combat spells. In fact the sorcerer is almost indisputably better in combat thanks to spontaneous casting. He ends up being more flexible where it counts-- in combat-- at least as CR goes.

Ultimately I never worry whether or not UK is accurate down to the thousandth of a point. You get yourself a creature with 1000 hit dice and you're off by 1 CR? I reckon you can live with that.

As I mentioned several times in (friendly) back-and-forth with UK, don't confuse precision for accuracy.
 

bykov

First Post
The actual derivation of those caster levels was never answered, that I could find, so I just used my own number and then adjusted the results with the TLAR methodology.

I used (max spell level) x (total number of spell levels/day) x .005 / 20.

I tried this. Doesn't account for effective caster level (as paladin and ranger cast at 1/2 HD) and if taken into effect with the sorcerer you still end up with the same inherent difference as my results above with the sorcerer being 50% higher than the wizards and the druid and cleric being more powerful than the wizard.

Bad methodology in my opinion, FWIW.

I agree. I was trying to deduce the correlation. Actually the more I thought about it, the difference between Psion & Wizard and that of the Sorcerer appears to be made up by the feats that both the psion and wizard receive. In combat, long term, the sorcerer is more effective than the wizard.

CR is meant to determine combat effectiveness. There's simply no way that the limited (!) number of spells known for the sorcerer limits his combat effectiveness vis a vis the wizard-- certainly not to that degree. He'll operate according to "best practices" and so pick the best combat spells. In fact the sorcerer is almost indisputably better in combat thanks to spontaneous casting. He ends up being more flexible where it counts-- in combat-- at least as CR goes.

Again, I concur.

Ultimately I never worry whether or not UK is accurate down to the thousandth of a point. You get yourself a creature with 1000 hit dice and you're off by 1 CR? I reckon you can live with that.

As I mentioned several times in (friendly) back-and-forth with UK, don't confuse precision for accuracy.

You get no arguement from me as to the benefits of the system, and this is not meant to be derision towards UK, I am merely trying to discover the building blocks. In the end, I believe that the sorcerer's spell levels are more effective than the wizard. I just believe if someone knows the methodology a more accurate comparison can be drawn to equate other classes, such as the psion and the crusader.

If spell power or quantity has a correlative effect it would assist in that dicovery as I believe the psions ability to modify powers could play a factor in their respective 'casting' power.

However, with the large difference with the spell casting level you are talking about an extra 150 CR per 1000 HD in regards to the casters (if they were all caster levels. :p). That would make a big difference.

Bykov.
 

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
I tried this. Doesn't account for effective caster level (as paladin and ranger cast at 1/2 HD) and if taken into effect with the sorcerer you still end up with the same inherent difference as my results above with the sorcerer being 50% higher than the wizards and the druid and cleric being more powerful than the wizard.

50% higher in total, or 50% higher for just that portion of CR (spellcasting)? I assume the latter.

First find a base methodology that looks right (and mine does, based on UK's other methods). Then massage that base factor until that gap between the casters rings true to you. .005 too high? Try .0025.

And then-- again, my larger point-- if you're close enough across 20 levels, you're close enough.
 

bykov

First Post
50% higher in total, or 50% higher for just that portion of CR (spellcasting)? I assume the latter.

Correct.

First find a base methodology that looks right (and mine does, based on UK's other methods). Then massage that base factor until that gap between the casters rings true to you. .005 too high? Try .0025.

And then-- again, my larger point-- if you're close enough across 20 levels, you're close enough.

And in the end, that is what matters, looking good to the person using it. I just cannot seem to find a common factor that aligns, even proportionally, Druid, Bard, Ranger, Cleric, Paladin, Wizard and Sorcerer with UK's numbers.

Bykov.
 

cure

First Post
Upper Crust's Challenging Challenge Ratings is a great piece of work. Well, well done.

I am having a little trouble, however, applying it to Clay Golem. What about their cursed, unhealable wounds? What best emulates that?

As for flesh golems, I can't quite reproduce numbers. I do the following:

Flesh Golem
HD 9
Str 21, Dex 9, Con Ø, Int Ø, Wis 11, Cha 1

Large CR +.3 + 0 Ability Score Bonouses
Construct CR +0.7
HD 3.15 9x.35
NA 10*.1
Damage 18*.1
DR .5x.5
Immunity Magic 10
Abilities Score -.7 + 0

And arrive at 16.5 rather 16.1. What am I missing?

Thanx.
 
Last edited:

BryonD

Hero
I am having a little trouble, however, applying it to Clay Golem. What about their cursed, unhealable wounds? What best emulates that?
The system looks at encounters as isolated events. So the unhealing curse is of rather small significance in that regard. Not being able to heal the wound during that particular combat is relevant. But the main effect is more a matter the GM should consider as part of the overall plot line.

It is a good example of how the "this combat" threat and overall threat of a creature are not always the same.
 

Hawkins8142

First Post
Hi Upper_Krust,

I know that the last reply to this thread was over 2 years ago, but I have been trying to find a copy of Challenging Challenge Ratings v5, and have had no luck. So I figured I would try to contact you here.

Thanks,
Hawkins
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top