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

[ciaran00]

As for counting ability scores, it's PC ability scores that should not be counted, or rather ROLLED ability scores, rolled being the random 3-18 factor. Only racial modifiers should count. For monsters, count it all. To be honest, all this is simply far too huge a problem to ignore. Oh and standard array is 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, not three 10s and three 11s.

Yeah, I thought that a 72 total, not a 63 was the standard too.

The Gelatinous Cube would be an instant TPK in almost every circumstance. Ability scores simply don't have enough impact to give PCs that much of an advantage.

I disagree. A difference between 16 and 24 is a 4 point penalty for a disintegrate spell. Do I think higher intelligences make better mages? Of course it does. The same goes for fighters and Str, etc. etc. Ability scores play a big role in PC effectiveness: progression, threat, etc. I wouldn't discount them by any means, esp. if I'm counting them for my monsters.

ciaran

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

I disagree. A difference between 16 and 24 is a 4 point penalty for a disintegrate spell. Do I think higher intelligences make better mages? Of course it does. The same goes for fighters and Str, etc. etc. Ability scores play a big role in PC effectiveness: progression, threat, etc. I wouldn't discount them by any means, esp. if I'm counting them for my monsters.

ciaran

I am one of those that was insisting that ability modifiers should be included. (and I gort my way ) However, I meant only modifiers. That is racial modifiers and the like (templates etc.).
I, like Anubis (I agree with Anubis!! Welcome back mate), think that only modifiers and not 'rolled' stats should be rated. But I can live with either.

 

[Cheiromancer]

That's precisely what my system does. I base treasure around EL, period...

Since I just posted a treasure breakdown based on EL, I guess you must be talking to me.

Since you used the all 18s example, I'll throw it right back in your faces.

I beg your pardon?

There is no need to throw anything in anyone's face, and I kinda resent the implication that I did so first.

 

[ciaran00]

Well, I agree with whatever is the status quo with U_K's document at present. I'm not about to suggest more working for such an upstanding citizen.

ciaran

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

Okay I don't have time to respond in full to all the above posts at the moment, but I'll get to those later.

I just wanted to run this up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it...

Treasure by EXP (as per Wulfs idea above)

(((EXP+300) divided by 1000) x EXP) + 30

eg #1. 10th-level Party facing Moderate Challenge

3000+300 divided by 1000 = 3.3 x 3000 = 9900 + 30 = 9930 gp


eg #2. 20th-level Party facing Moderate Challenge

6000+300 divided by 1000 = 6.3 x 6000 = 37,800 + 30 = 37,800 gp


I have only just started testing it so I am still not sure it works perfectly, but I have to go out and do some Christmas shopping in a moment. Feel free to put it through its paces, let me know if it works (?) and if someone can make it even simpler then all the better.

Cya later.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Don't count PC ability scores!

Great.

Then we also won't count Spell Focus, Improved Initiative, Toughness, Iron Will, Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, Spell Penetration, Skill Focus, or any one of dozens of feats that are direct correlations of increased ability scores-- though costing 0.2 per, and granting LESS than the actual benefit of an increased ability score.

It is silly to argue that ability scores do not have an impact on the party's EL. I am curious as to what limited gaming experience (playing with blinders on) could possibly lead one to that conclusion.

The raison d'etre of UKs system is to balance CR with EL; in essence, to determine "a fair fight." If you're not interested in the advantages of that-- which I can only assume you are not, since you don't seem to think that ability scores are relevant-- then why bother switching to UKs system at all? Carry on with the core rules.

Wulf

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Treasure by EXP (as per Wulfs idea above)

(((EXP+300) divided by 1000) x EXP) + 30

I'll do the math in a second.

First, there's a couple points from the DMG (I am reading from the 3.5 version).

Page 51 (Treasure):
Table 3.5 has been created so that if PCs face enough encounters of their own level
[note: this means a "moderate" encounter in UKs system, or EL -4]
to gain a level, they will have also gained enough treasure to keep them apace with the wealth-by-level information found in Table 5-1: Character Wealth by Level (page 135).

This is a pretty strong advocate that the gp award should be tied to the xp award-- and it appears to be a linear, rather than exponential, relationship. By tying the gp award to the xp award, you throw out any necessity of referring back to the logarithmic relationship of CR and EL, # of party members, and that whole mess.

A quick note about that Wealth-by-Level table. A quick glance shows that at low levels, the GP value is almost equal to the XP required (give or take 10%). 1000 XP at level 2, 900 GP at level 2; 3000 XP at level 3, 2700 GP at level 3. That formula breaks down quickly, however; as the character level increases, the gp value actually starts to outpace the xp required (rather quickly).

Table 3-3 Treasure Values Per Encounter (page 51) seems like a better starting place; I would be inclined (for my own purposes) to simply use that table with slight conversions to UK's system. For example, Table 3-3 is arranged by "Encounter Level, 1-20;" that would have to be converted to the relative EL system.

However, the holy grail (for UK, at least) would be a formula derived from that table that is extendable to levels above 20th.

Wulf

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

uh-oh.. The tone in the thread has gotten a bit hotter, I must say.

ANUBIS IS BACK!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

eg #1. 10th-level Party facing Moderate Challenge

3000+300 divided by 1000 = 3.3 x 3000 = 9900 + 30 = 9930 gp


eg #2. 20th-level Party facing Moderate Challenge

6000+300 divided by 1000 = 6.3 x 6000 = 37,800 + 30 = 37,800 gp

Ok, no math yet-- just an instant observation.

First off, I can't really comment on any formula that doesn't stick to the guidelines in the DMG. I have to stick to that target; a formula that comes up with any other answer is just arbitrary. That may be fine for your campaign, but in terms of a "correct" answer, I can't salute that.

According to Table 3-3, a 10th level moderate challenge awards 5800 GP-- almost half your result.

By the same table, a 20th level moderate challenge awards 80,000 GP-- almost double your result.

I'd say the search continues...

Wulf

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Wulf mate!

Ok, no math yet-- just an instant observation.

First off, I can't really comment on any formula that doesn't stick to the guidelines in the DMG. I have to stick to that target; a formula that comes up with any other answer is just arbitrary. That may be fine for your campaign, but in terms of a "correct" answer, I can't salute that.

According to Table 3-3, a 10th level moderate challenge awards 5800 GP-- almost half your result.

By the same table, a 20th level moderate challenge awards 80,000 GP-- almost double your result.

I'd say the search continues...

You understand of course that I am creating rules that work with my formulas for PC and NPC wealth - not the wealth nor treasure tables that are present in the core rulebooks since there is no actual formula to them, they are more or less arbitrary figures.