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

[Anubis]

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

Okay, I'm gonna tune you out now. Man, I got about three times more experience than you do AND I've playtested, so don't gimme that crap. Hell, I playtested the counting/not counting ability scores for PCs and there are absolutely NO balance issues if you don't count ability scores. Basically, it doesn't matter if the ability scores have an effect if the effect doesn't make an impact! That would be like giving a creature immune to all spells and spell-like effects and supernatural abilities SR 50000 and then charging it a crapload of CR for it despite it doing almost nothing!

Buh bye.

 

[Anubis]

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.

Salute it? No . . . More like . . . *pees on it*

Yeah, that. Mind explaining why the same dragon's hoard shrinks as more powerful PCs face it? Does he have to pay level tax to fate or something?

I challenge ANYONE to find a flaw in my formula. I dare ya'. Cut the go and admit that I actually got something good here.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anubis mate!

Okay, I'm gonna tune you out now.

You know mate, you have only been back 24 hours and already your tone is back to insulting. You really want to take a 'chill pill' or something. Everyone in here wants to make the best possible system because its in everybody's best interest to do so. These are public boards and no one really wants to get into a needless flame war.

So I would appreciate it if you saved your abrasive manner for when we are on messenger.

Man, I got about three times more experience than you do AND I've playtested, so don't gimme that crap.

I remember you used that line on me and it turned out I had been roleplaying practically longer than you had lived and had published material.

As for Wulfs credentials (though I am sure he can defend himself) if you had taken the trouble to pull your head out of you know where, you would have realised he actually works for a d20 publishing company.

Hell, I playtested the counting/not counting ability scores for PCs and there are absolutely NO balance issues if you don't count ability scores. Basically, it doesn't matter if the ability scores have an effect if the effect doesn't make an impact! That would be like giving a creature immune to all spells and spell-like effects and supernatural abilities SR 50000 and then charging it a crapload of CR for it despite it doing almost nothing!

Buh bye.

Can we just leave the whole ability scores argument alone. Frankly there is no argument - and shouting ever louder won't change the facts that ability scores do impact the CRs.

Previously when we didn't rate all ability scores for CRs THEY WERE STILL A PERTINENT FACTOR - but we thought we could get away with them! So you can't say they are not a factor because everyone (except you) realises they are.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Salute it? No . . . More like . . . *pees on it*

Thanks for lowering the tone mate.

Yeah, that. Mind explaining why the same dragon's hoard shrinks as more powerful PCs face it? Does he have to pay level tax to fate or something?

Show me an example of this happening?

I think you are forgetting that EXP (in my table) is multiplied by character level.

I challenge ANYONE to find a flaw in my formula. I dare ya'. Cut the go and admit that I actually got something good here.

If I understand correctly (?) low band CR Party vs Low Band (same EL) monster actually gives median results for that EL, which means the Party are gaining more Treasure for both their level and monster power.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

In my own defense, Upper_Krust only beat me by 5 points on an IQ test. Those 5 points, however, pushed him into the genius circle.

You address a VISIONARY PHILOSOPHER. Tread Carefully.

*Sassen-frassen.*

I still can't believe I got one of those questions wrong, especially such an easy one.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anubis mate!

That's precisely what my system does. I base treasure around EL, period. UK's bases treasure around CR, which in his system does not determine XP.

I now agree with you (after researching all the evidence - including your ideas) that it should be based on EL.

I am just not sure your idea of using the median EL is the optimum method.

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.

Since you used the all 18s example, I'll throw it right back in your faces. What if a party of four Level 1 PCs with all 18s faces a Gelatinous Cube, which is CR 3? They should be able to fight four or five before having to heal if you count ability scores. Sadly, I'm sorry to say that a Level 1 party would be hard-pressed to be able to defeat one much less four or five. 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.

Don't count PC ability scores!

A level 1 party with all 18s would be effectively CR 3 (each), of that there is no doubt. I envision they would find any CR 3 encounter a moderate one, especially given that (as I have said before) ability scores are also rated for the monsters.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I challenge ANYONE to find a flaw in my formula. I dare ya'. Cut the go and admit that I actually got something good here.

1 hobgoblin (EL 2): 300 gp (300 each)
8 hobgoblins (EL 8): 1470 gp (184 each)

So when you get more hobgoblins together, they collect less treasure?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

It seems as if we have reached an impasse.

We have three systems for determining treasure, none are perfect, but each have their pros and cons.

1. Treasure determined by Challenge Rating: 90 x CR x (CR+1) + 30.

2. Treasure determined by Encounter Level (by Anubis): ((Lowest Wealth of EL+1) - Lowest Wealth of EL) x 0.3 ÷ # of Levels with that EL band

Is that right Anubis mate?

3. Treasure determined by Experience Points: EXP x ((EXP+300) ÷ 1000) + 30

If we use Method #1 we get conflicting results when EL is a variable.
If we use Method #2 we get conflicting results when the # of monsters is a variable.
If we use Method #3 we get conflicting results when (PC) CR is a variable...though according to Wulf this isn't actually a flaw.

Personally I think we may (?) have to go with two methods: Fixed (as per Method #1) and Relative (as per Method #3).

Anubis method (#2) is somewhere in between both of these.

I am curious to hear what the rest of you think on the matter before I make any decisions?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

UK--

Once again, I didn't mean anything by my choice of the term "arbitrary;" simply that, if you aren't aiming for any specific target (ie, the DMG) then you can settle on whatever solution suits the level of treasure that you are aiming for.

I believe there has to be a mathematical solution to the DMG numbers (barring a certain "flattening" of the numbers at levels 1-4). I've passed it on to a "higher authority" and if/when he solves it for me, I'll let you know.

Wulf

 

[Upper_Krust]

UK--

Hiya mate!

Once again, I didn't mean anything by my choice of the term "arbitrary;" simply that, if you aren't aiming for any specific target (ie, the DMG) then you can settle on whatever solution suits the level of treasure that you are aiming for.

Obviously I have been using the core rules as a 'yardstick', but I don't feel constrained by them.

I believe there has to be a mathematical solution to the DMG numbers (barring a certain "flattening" of the numbers at levels 1-4). I've passed it on to a "higher authority" and if/when he solves it for me, I'll let you know.

The fact that you already recognise a flattening of numbers tells you that there will be be no exact formula.

I seem to recall someone on these boards (was it you CRGreathouse mate?) discovered a formula that was very close to explaining the Wealth progression.