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

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

U_K: Yes, I would support a system like your 'treasure by CR' system, though I might use a different formula. I agree with your basic premise.

So you prefer a simple, fixed approach. Whereas Wulf prefers the simple, relative approach.

Perhaps I should simply put all methods in the system and let DMs use whichever they deem best, rather than stressing about 'one method to rule them all, one method to bind them, yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Cheiromancer]

The formulas converting back and forth between EL and CR are just based on your two definitions; that CR 1=EL 1, and doubling the CR increases the EL by +4. They are

EL = 1+4*log2(CR)

and

CR = 2^((EL-1)/4)

I understand all this bit.

Though don't you mean CR = 2^((EL-1)/4)-1 at the end there?

Nope. An EL 5, plugged into CR = 2^((EL-1)/4), gives CR 2. You subtract 1 to find the party level that it is a decent challenge for (in this case, a first level party).

That pesky +1 for standard array is what messes things up; I think that is probably why I misquoted the equation before.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Holy sh*t, UK. You just pointed out a huge error on my part. (Heck, you double checked me, I'll share the blame with you if you want.)

I don't want to go into the why's and wherefore's of how this error popped in other than to say I think I might have drawn up my xp table before I worked out-- or at least, fully grasped-- the "group CR to EL" method.

And I think it is because the XP table is taking party size into account TWICE-- once when you determine party EL, and again on the XP table.

The correction is simply to use ONLY the 4-5 column for xp-- eliminate the party size columns. If you are going to adjust party EL by size prior to looking at the XP table, you don't need any column other than the 4-5 column. In essence, the two axes of the table are simply "EL Difference" and "XP per Level".

A difficult encounter awards 4x as many xp as a moderate encounter. So it takes only 3-1/3 (10/3) of such encounters (instead of 13-1/3, or 40/3) to gain a level (which is 1000 EXP x Current Level).

Let's look at your two examples. (And by the way, would it have killed ya to use a moderate encounter?)

Checking it out for the party of four, the xp award per player is 9000; 9000 x 10/3 = 30,000. So far so good: a 30th level character needs 30,000 xp to level up. Each character is getting what he needs.

For the party of one, the xp award per player is 72,000. 72,000 x 10/3 = 240,000. Even though he's alone, and thus not dividing the xp four ways, that's STILL four times higher than it should be.

So let's check again, eliminating the "Party Size = 1" column and using the 4-5 column for the single character.

EL +/-0 encounter = 300 xp per Character Level. Again, whether a character or a party, you'll need 10/3 encounters of this difficulty to level.

300 * 60 = 18,000 EXP.

18,000 * 10/3 = 60,000 EXP. Now it's balanced for the 60th level character.

Now, I am not sure which of your many treasure formulas you used in your example, but how does it work out now?

EDIT: Just a guess, the lone character gets 1/4 as much treasure-- which is as it should be, because this will keep him on track to earn enough treasure to hit the next level of "Wealth by Level." (That is, he doesn't have to split the treasure four ways with other party members.)

Wulf

 

[CRGreathouse]

So you prefer a simple, fixed approach. Whereas Wulf prefers the simple, relative approach.

Perhaps I should simply put all methods in the system and let DMs use whichever they deem best, rather than stressing about 'one method to rule them all, one method to bind them, yadda yadda yadda.

Yep, that's it. Everyone using my method will wither and become a wraith under my command, and then I shall rule all of Middle-E

...er...

Yes, that's it. I want the final method to be as simple as possible, within the rough bounds of the existing system (for compatibility), andI feel strongly about it being "fixed" rather than relative.

Frankly, I can't stand Anubis' system; it's complex and piecewise. Wulf's system is nice and smooth, at least.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Frankly, I can't stand Anubis' system; it's complex and piecewise. Wulf's system is nice and smooth, at least.

Errrr, to be fair, I don't even HAVE a system yet.

Just an update on those hard working engineers in Bangalore-- my contact had to call off the dogs, as it was leading to too much lost productivity.

We'll call it a draw.

Searching for the solution to that sequence (3, 6, 9, 12, 16, 20, 26, etc.) led to a variable multiplier between ~1.414 (square root 2, for those of you who are checking) and ~1.322. Seems like a very small difference, but when you are talking about a calculation over 20 levels (or more, if you're talking Epic), it makes a big difference.

Ultimately I boiled it down to (4)(XP)(N ^ L), where XP is the XP award per level (based on relative EL), L is character level, and N is somewhere between 1.414213562 and 1.322203908 (at least, over the first 20 levels...)

And there's nothing nice and smooth about that...

Wulf

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Nope. An EL 5, plugged into CR = 2^((EL-1)/4), gives CR 2. You subtract 1 to find the party level that it is a decent challenge for (in this case, a first level party).

That pesky +1 for standard array is what messes things up; I think that is probably why I misquoted the equation before.

Ah right, fair enough.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Wulf mate!

Holy sh*t, UK. You just pointed out a huge error on my part. (Heck, you double checked me, I'll share the blame with you if you want.)

Hey this revised EXP system is your baby!

...but I'll stand by you mate.

I don't want to go into the why's and wherefore's of how this error popped in other than to say I think I might have drawn up my xp table before I worked out-- or at least, fully grasped-- the "group CR to EL" method.

And I think it is because the XP table is taking party size into account TWICE-- once when you determine party EL, and again on the XP table.

That old chestnut again!

The correction is simply to use ONLY the 4-5 column for xp-- eliminate the party size columns. If you are going to adjust party EL by size prior to looking at the XP table, you don't need any column other than the 4-5 column. In essence, the two axes of the table are simply "EL Difference" and "XP per Level".

A difficult encounter awards 4x as many xp as a moderate encounter. So it takes only 3-1/3 (10/3) of such encounters (instead of 13-1/3, or 40/3) to gain a level (which is 1000 EXP x Current Level).

Let's look at your two examples. (And by the way, would it have killed ya to use a moderate encounter?)

Checking it out for the party of four, the xp award per player is 9000; 9000 x 10/3 = 30,000. So far so good: a 30th level character needs 30,000 xp to level up. Each character is getting what he needs.

For the party of one, the xp award per player is 72,000. 72,000 x 10/3 = 240,000. Even though he's alone, and thus not dividing the xp four ways, that's STILL four times higher than it should be.

So let's check again, eliminating the "Party Size = 1" column and using the 4-5 column for the single character.

EL +/-0 encounter = 300 xp per Character Level. Again, whether a character or a party, you'll need 10/3 encounters of this difficulty to level.

300 * 60 = 18,000 EXP.

18,000 * 10/3 = 60,000 EXP. Now it's balanced for the 60th level character.

Now, I am not sure which of your many treasure formulas you used in your example, but how does it work out now?

Well if EXP is now perfect, that could mean that my Tresure by EXP rules are now flawless...?

EDIT: Just a guess, the lone character gets 1/4 as much treasure-- which is as it should be, because this will keep him on track to earn enough treasure to hit the next level of "Wealth by Level." (That is, he doesn't have to split the treasure four ways with other party members.)

(Y)our mistake could inadvertantly solve everything!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi CRGreathouse mate!

Yep, that's it. Everyone using my method will wither and become a wraith under my command, and then I shall rule all of Middle-E

...er...

Yes, that's it. I want the final method to be as simple as possible, within the rough bounds of the existing system (for compatibility), andI feel strongly about it being "fixed" rather than relative.

Hopefully with the latest revelation we can sort Treasure by EXP.

Frankly, I can't stand Anubis' system; it's complex and piecewise.

Well I agree it is incredibly clumsy to implement, but it was previously giving the most consistent results.

Of course that could all be irrelevant now if this Treasure by EXP pans out.

Wulf's system is nice and smooth, at least.

I'm guessing you mean my (other) system.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm guessing you mean my (other) system.

Tips hat, twice; looks embarassed

Apologies to all involved...

 

[Leopold]

is ver 4.1 out yet?