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

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'll have a think about it though, but it all seems to fiddly to paint with a wide brush.

Keeping in mind, of course, that the Silver Rule IS a wide brush.

"Multiply all CR's by .85" is pretty wide.

Just because you have a lot of fiddly numbers working BEHIND the Silver Rule doesn't make it any less kludgy in implementation.


Wulf

 

[Upper_Krust]

Sorcica,

Well, they don't have any armor or weapon proficiencies. Or any attacks. And no class skills. Those are just off the top of my head...

Exactly.

Hey Upper_Krust!

Hiya mate!

Were you aware of the "Drive Upper_Krust Crazy" organization on the board? (DUCK for short).

I was aware of someone or some thing working against me (I thought it could only be GOD), but I didn't know what until now.

I have been informed by the sinister cabal that runs DUCK that I have not met my quota of random attacks on yourself, and that there is serious danger that you might soon finish tinkering with "Challenging Challenge Ratings." That, of course, must be prevented at all costs! So here goes:

1. Regarding the deconstruction of the Dragon Type Hit Dice (page 19)- you neglect to include the 13 class skills that all dragons have. (10 for being a dragon, the other three depending on species). This adds another 1.3% to the total of 79.21%, for a grand total of 80.51%. This, in turn, means that the value for Dragon Hit Dice on page 5 is incorrect; instead of saying 0.75 CR/HD, it should be 0.80 (I assume those numbers are rounded down to the nearest 0.05). You should probably recheck all your dragon CRs.

*Expletive deletive*

Few people will ever fully comprehend how much I have grown to loathe this system.

2. Bonus feats. The example for the vampire says that each bonus feat (not tied to HD progression) is worth 0.2 CR. Vampires get 5 bonus feats, so their CR is increased by +1.0 CR.

But the bonus feats in question (Alertness, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Improved Initiative, Lightning Reflexes) are all "entry level feats-" feats with no pre-requisites. A fighter who spends all his bonus feats on entry level feats will be substantially weaker than one who invests in some of the feat chains. In other words, if the bonus feats are Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Combat Expertise and Whirlwind Attack they should be worth a lot more than the five vampire bonus feats.

This could make a big difference for creatures like Sorcica's outsider mentioned above.

I don't care about this. I'm not getting into variable feat power discussions, I just take the average.

3. Integrated Spellcasting. This is related to the observation about chains of feats. If you have a CR 12 monster, the first few levels of integrated wizard is not worth a whole lot. But each level gets more valuable. It is like a chain of spellcasting abilities: 1st level wizard spells is a pre-requisite to (and less powerful than) 2nd level wizard spells, which is a pre-requisite to (and less powerful than) 3rd level wizard spells, and so on. Your system gives the same flat value to each. Which is like giving all feats the same value.

Yes. I take the average over the levels otherwise you have to throw all thoughts of actual level balance out the window.

I don't see any benefit to working out the class levels individually.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Two things:

- Firstly you haven't added your attack progression into the mix. (Remember that monsters have their attacks added directly).

+0.2625/Level for Fighter Attack Progression over 20 Levels.

This brings your class up to +1.3625 (making it superior to the Cleric Class)

- Secondly you have no weapon proficiencies. So you would need to pay for those at the start.

I still don't get it. If the outsider was a 20 HD creature and somebody wanted to play it as outlined above, there wouldn't be any +0.2625/lvl adjustment.
It would just be a playable outsider, superior to a figter.

The MM states that outsiders have some weapon profiencies. Even if not, proficiencies and skill could be paid off with a 1lvl ECL penalty, still making the outsider better.

Or am I mixing oranges and apples here?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

According to the MM, outsiders do have armor and weapon proficiencies. Even if they don't, it would still be within the silver rule to give a few. The same goes for skills.

As for attacks, you're right. I'm still a bit confused by the way full attack is rated one way for monsters and another for PC's.

The reason is that monsters don't adhere to the same number of attacks - take dragons for instance; you wouldn't rate them the same as Fighters.

But still, that would still only make a +1ECL adjustment. So one character would be a 20th lvl fighter and the other a 19 HD outsider with twice the feats, almost. I know which one I'd rather be...

Or is it something else elementary I'm just not getting

See my previous response.

Edit: Just saw Cheiromancer's add on..

I very much agree, and have been doing a bit on thinking on the subject myself. I too, have been vary of the dragon HD being 'on the edge'.

*Sigh*

Start forgetting foolish notions of having the Immortals Handbook by Xmas, thats all I want to say on the matter.

And I think that Krust is aware that not all feats are equal. Fx he's always saying toughness should grant 6 hp.

Thats +6 hp 'on average' over the course of 20 Levels. Not necessarily from its inception.

But isn't this just the way the game is designed - that some feats are weaker than oters? I'm aware that raises some problems when U_K's system is based on 1 feat = 0.2 CR. So what to do? Ignore it or change the feats (as I think UK has done with some)?

U_K has changed no feats.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Chosen01!

Hey Krust, check out Elements of Monsters.

http://www.3ednd.com/ccproduct.php?productid=2220

Their monster creation system sounds similar to yours.

"A Complete Point-Based System for monster creation that includes pre-priced costs for all standard Monster Parts (Hit Dice, Natural Armor, Initiative Modifier, Feats, and all the rest)."

"Detailed Costing Formulas for you to use to cost your own Special Abilities and Feats."

Looks interesting. Hope it goes well for them.

Of course the key to my system is the CR-EL relationship, not the CR factors.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Wulf mate!

Keeping in mind, of course, that the Silver Rule IS a wide brush.

"Multiply all CR's by .85" is pretty wide.

Just because you have a lot of fiddly numbers working BEHIND the Silver Rule doesn't make it any less kludgy in implementation.

Do you think instead of listing the Silver Rule number in the Revised CR listings section that it would be better served to list the ECL (with equipment) for all creatures?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Do you think instead of listing the Silver Rule number in the Revised CR listings section that it would be better served to list the ECL (with equipment) for all creatures?

GREAT idea!!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Of course the key to my system is the CR-EL relationship, not the CR factors.

I couldn't agree more! (It's especially spiffy with individual XP awards. )

Recently, EN-user pogre was asking me to help him design some encounters for a weekend adventure. Once I got my own brain wrapped around the system, it was amazing how quickly balanced encounters came together.

Determine the Party's EL
1) Add all of the party's character levels together.

1a) If, like me, you're using the CR factors to allow players to tweak race abilities, for example, add in those bonus CR as well. (Adding CR is sort of like adding ECL, but much simpler with UK's system!)

2) Take this total CR, find the EL on Table 2-1.

3) Take this EL to table 2-3 and adjust for the number of characters in the party. You now have the party EL.

For example, let's say you have four 6th level characters.

CR6 + CR6 + CR6 + CR6 = CR24

CR24 = EL 19; EL 19 with 4 combatants = EL 15.

Determine the Desired Encounter Difficulty
1) Use Table 2-4 (or 2-5) to determine the desired difficulty.

For example, if I want a short, easy encounter to sap about 12.5% of the party's resources (with a 93% success rate) I want an encounter that is "EL-6."

Thus, if my party is EL15, a short easy encounter would be EL 9.

Determine the Size of the Enemy Force

Because the number of combatants affects EL (Table 2-3 again) I next go to the "scale" of the enemy force. Do I want a single difficult opponent, a small group of 4-5, or a war party of 12-15?

1) Let's go with the war party. 12-15 opponents is EL -7.

2) The target EL is 9 (easy), so the adjusted EL for 12-15 opponents bumps back to 16 (EL 9 + EL 7 = EL 16).

Determine the Specifics of the Enemy

1) Start with the adjusted EL16.

2) Convert this back to CR. EL 16 = CR 14-15.

3) Now "purchase" the enemy out of this CR total. For example:

Orc War Chief (with Bbn levels) (CR 4, CR 11 remaining)
Orc Shaman (with cleric levels) (CR3, CR 8 remaining)
Orc Warriors (CR 2/3 each, x12 = CR 8, 0 remaining)

14 Total Combatants, Total CR15, EL 9.

An easy encounter for four 6th level PCs.

Just one of the many uses for UK's system that will be seeing print in GRIM TALES. (So, uhh, please correct me if I did it wrong! )

Wulf

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

GREAT idea!!

What about monsters that are never likely to be played by characters, should I just make a judgement call or am I going to have people crying "But I wanted to play as a Unicorn!"?

Any thoughts?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Wulf matey!

I couldn't agree more!

I think thats the key to the whole thing. Accurate Challenge Ratings without the Encounter Level relationship are ultimately futile.

(It's especially spiffy with individual XP awards. )

Recently, EN-user pogre was asking me to help him design some encounters for a weekend adventure. Once I got my own brain wrapped around the system, it was amazing how quickly balanced encounters came together.

Glad to see people getting to grips with the system. I always knew it was only a matter of people using it a few times beginning to pick up its nuances and benefits.

Just one of the many uses for UK's system that will be seeing print in GRIM TALES. (So, uhh, please correct me if I did it wrong! )

It looks okay.