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

[Matrix Sorcica]

Hiya mate!



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?

Good point, U_K. I think that it would be safe to leave out the 'unplayable' creatures. Now, the definition of unplayable is open to discussion, but I would from the top of my head say unintelligent creatures, immobile creatures, creatures without fine manipulators (i.e. unicorns), most oozes and such, and creatures that can't really survive (or be effective) in a normal earth-like environment.

 

[Intrope]

Good point, U_K. I think that it would be safe to leave out the 'unplayable' creatures. Now, the definition of unplayable is open to discussion, but I would from the top of my head say unintelligent creatures, immobile creatures, creatures without fine manipulators (i.e. unicorns), most oozes and such, and creatures that can't really survive (or be effective) in a normal earth-like environment.

I'd disagree on these, things like fine manipulation are just difficult, not really unplayable (I've long wanted to play dragons, a psionic tiger, and other oddities so the idea of a poor-manipulation creature doesn't bother me too much).

In fact, all of the following should (IMO) have with-wealth entries:
Things with no fine manipulation
Things with limited language ability (like Griffons, that can only understand, not speak, common)
Things that can survive only in limited environments (like aquatic creatures).

I wouldn't include the following:
Unintelligent/Animal intelligence creatures (without a personality, it isn't much of a roleplay!)
Things with no manipulation at all (Oozes)
Creatures that can't communicate (whether due to lack of speech/hearing abilities or due to alien viewpoint)

That would leave quite a few creatures available. Also remember that this figure would be useful for judging whether a given creature would make a good cohort, as well; and a cohort could be something that no one would actually want to play, after all.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi there Intrope!

I'd disagree on these, things like fine manipulation are just difficult, not really unplayable (I've long wanted to play dragons, a psionic tiger, and other oddities so the idea of a poor-manipulation creature doesn't bother me too much).

In fact, all of the following should (IMO) have with-wealth entries:
Things with no fine manipulation
Things with limited language ability (like Griffons, that can only understand, not speak, common)
Things that can survive only in limited environments (like aquatic creatures).

I wouldn't include the following:
Unintelligent/Animal intelligence creatures (without a personality, it isn't much of a roleplay!)
Things with no manipulation at all (Oozes)
Creatures that can't communicate (whether due to lack of speech/hearing abilities or due to alien viewpoint)

That would leave quite a few creatures available. Also remember that this figure would be useful for judging whether a given creature would make a good cohort, as well; and a cohort could be something that no one would actually want to play, after all.

I'll probably take a stab at every creature with an Intelligence of 4 or better.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Hi there Intrope!



I'll probably take a stab at every creature with an Intelligence of 4 or better.

Maybe there should be a listing for CR with equipment but before the golden rule, so that these numbers can be used directly as ECL?

 

[kreynolds]

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!"?

I agree with Intrope. The info is useful to have from a cohort/NPC-addition-to-party perspective as well.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

Maybe there should be a listing for CR with equipment but before the golden rule, so that these numbers can be used directly as ECL?

I thought that was ECL.

Maybe there should be a listing for CR with equipment but before the golden rule, so that these numbers can be used directly as ECL?

I agree with Intrope. The info is useful to have from a cohort/NPC-addition-to-party perspective as well.

One problem herein is that ECL would not be the same as Cohorts since one would use PC wealth and the other NPC wealth.

Also it should be noted that the new CRs = ECL +1 (without equipment that is though).

 

[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?

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.

Could someone please take the time to explain this to the very slow of mind (me), and not necesessarily Krust, who just might be busy enough without having to answer this neverending stream of questions.

The dragons and outsiders in the MM have varying skills. Yet this is not mentioned in the CR factors, only their HD are. It is only in the class design section that class skills influence CR.

So are the class skills (the one listed in the MM) for the various outsiders and dragons added into the listed CRs?

If I play a hill giant from lvl 1 by adjusting HD and abilities and letting those grow over time as in Savage Species, I shouldn't all of a sudden start to add in extra CR from iterative attacks, should I? That would be accounted for in the final CR for a hill giant, spread out over x lvls.

Wouldn't the same be the case with the mentioned outsider? If the outsider typically uses a longsword I would add +0.825 CR for full attack at 20 HD. A minor CR might be applicable due to skills and proficiencies, but not more than a lvl, I think.

Please explain this to me as if I was even more imbecile than I apparently already am.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I think you are right about the skills; they should have been added. About the iterative attacks, though... do giants and outsiders get them?

Here's a different question: how much is +1d6 of sneak attack damage worth? A feat (0.2 CR)? Or more than that?

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think you are right about the skills; they should have been added. About the iterative attacks, though... do giants and outsiders get them?

Here's a different question: how much is +1d6 of sneak attack damage worth? A feat (0.2 CR)? Or more than that?

Well, you can buy it with an epic feat...

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Sorcica mate!

Could someone please take the time to explain this to the very slow of mind (me), and not necesessarily Krust, who just might be busy enough without having to answer this neverending stream of questions.

*Harumph*

The dragons and outsiders in the MM have varying skills. Yet this is not mentioned in the CR factors, only their HD are. It is only in the class design section that class skills influence CR.

So are the class skills (the one listed in the MM) for the various outsiders and dragons added into the listed CRs?

The average should be added to the HD modifier.

But its omission shouldn't cause noticeable problems.

If I play a hill giant from lvl 1 by adjusting HD and abilities and letting those grow over time as in Savage Species,

My system is set up to facilitate CRs

I shouldn't all of a sudden start to add in extra CR from iterative attacks, should I? That would be accounted for in the final CR for a hill giant, spread out over x lvls.

All standard attacks are accounted for within the final CR.

Wouldn't the same be the case with the mentioned outsider? If the outsider typically uses a longsword I would add +0.825 CR for full attack at 20 HD.

What mentioned Outsider?

A minor CR might be applicable due to skills and proficiencies, but not more than a lvl, I think.

Indeed.

Please explain this to me as if I was even more imbecile than I apparently already am.

Very often, monsters don't use the same attack progression as the classes. That is why their attacks/damage are not rated the same way.