xanatos said:Can you tell me where are they? Because that table is incomplete (being a relative table, you can't get the STR of Fine creatures (probably -12 or -14).
xanatos said:p.3 Size: you forgot that there are monsters without STR and CON... Spectres! (all Undead+Incorporeal creatures don't have STR and CON)
xanatos said:p. 7 Golems don't have Magic Immunity, in 3.5, they have Total Spell Immunity... It isn't clear in your rules, does Spell Immunity 0-9 gives you immunity to all spells, or only to spells from level 0 to 9 (no metamagic 9th level spells)
xanatos said:p.8 Summon: no, MULTIPLY by percentage! (if you divide something by 30%, you get a bigger number)
xanatos said:Shouldn't you use the EL of the creatures or something similar? Surely 10 goblins are not as strong as a CR 10 creature... They are only annoying... Unless the strategy is to slow the enemy!
xanatos said:I think that Turn Resistance should be capped at less than 1.5. Even if you have 20 turn res., you can still be turned and you have other Undead vulnerabilities (there are many nasty clerical spells around, plus Mace of Desruption etc.)
xanatos said:Immune to SOME Fortitude Saves (for CON = 0)... Disintegrate still works! :-(
xanatos said:Can you make a Reflex Save with Dex = 0? I'm not sure... I'll have to check. If you are immobile, then you should fail Reflex saves
xanatos said:Is no natural healing a modifier if the construct has fast healing? (is a disadvantage that is not a disadvantage still worth points?)
xanatos said:Wealth: wasn't the epic wealth rules different from normal ones? Are you using YOUR rules for wealth? Probably yes, but then you should write it clearly! Something like "Morons, I'm using MY wealth rules... Knee before me or DIE!"
xanatos said:Unless you have a whole chapter about wealth rules in your book!
xanatos said:Do monsters get the 1 attribute point / four levels for free?
xanatos said:p. 20 Can you sell back attributes/move base points between attributes?
If yes, wouldn't it be easyer to simply tell that you start with 63 or 72 "free" points for attributes (55 and 64 if you don't have an attribute)
My point was that you wrote "Immune to For saves fullstop" (p. 8) and not "Immune to For saves BUT those that affects objects"
72 and 64 where with the Elite Array.
No, full spell immunity is treated a CR +5.
Spell Immunity to a single level of spells is +0.5. (Including 0th-level spells that makes 9th-level spell immunity +5).
They have fractional CRs in the Monster Manual dude.
Upper_Krust said:No its rated in their HD.
xanatos said:But your list (p.8, 2nd column, upper right) is wrong: You say that Ability Scores from Size factor affect CR... Ok... The Size affect CR... But it gives you free Ability Scores points. Reading what it's written it seems that you have to pay for the +8 STR that Large Size gives you.
xanatos said:Then why Natural Armor isn't included in Size? I know that in a perfect world a creature would be the sum of various "layers" of templates... A Race/Type template plus a Size Template plus some generic templates plus the creature.
xanatos said:I consider Special Templates (Lich, Half Dragon etc) to be "adders" to the basic creature... You don't create a Half Dragon Half Demon Xyzptl from scratch. You first create a "Xyzptl"... Then you make it an Half Dragon Half Demon Xyzptl. So Special Templates should have attribute modifiers. Size is different. Each creature has a size and you normally don't start thinking a creature as a medium size creature and then enlarging it (or perhaps you could... For humanoid creatures sometimes I do this... I think it as a medium size creature and I ask myself how it would compare to a human... Then I enlarge it)... But many persons directly use the suggested values for creatures of size X, or directly compare it to other creatures (if I want the Yellow Dragon with Blue Spots I take a standard Dragon and I modify it... I don't start from scratch thinking "how would it be if it was a Human?")
Knight Otu said:Hi, UK!
Knight Otu said:
I consider Good Rolls to be Players Helper and, as such, I don't put them in the equation (unless they are TOO much good rolls... Then I know that I have to raise a little the CR of the enemyes... But I don't raise the CR/PEL of the Party... So yes... They get more PX)Are you saying that ability scores should simply be factored in and of themselves!? Are you going to apply ECL penalties to PCs who roll high ability scores!?
Clay_More said:Hey Mr. Krust,
Clay_More said:yours threads seem to have some Energizer Bunny over them
Clay_More said:I read some of the discussion on the subject of adding low CR minions to a high CR encounter (with the example of Skeletons and a Paragon, Great, Wyrm, Fiendish Red Dragon or something). As I think I might have pointed out later on, any system can be broken if taken to the extreme (some systems more than others though. See Epic Spells in ELH for examples).
Clay_More said:It wouldn't be bad at all seeing the system put into some form of electronic spreadsheet. If only I hadn't stopped doing Delphi, I could have volunteered, but the knowledge is extremely rusty these days, wouldn't do much good.
Clay_More said:And on another note, took the liberty of making a referral or two to the thread, seems most people who post monsters in them D&D forums ask for advice on CR-evaluation.
Clay_More said:I gotten through the first three converted 3.5 monsters for Necromancers Legacy with the system, hasn't been any incidents yet (CR's ended up what I would expect from playtesting).
xanatos said:That table doesn't contain STR, DEX and CON! I'm sure... I have the book!
xanatos said:Ok... But PC and NPC classes do get it, right?
xanatos said:My point was that you wrote "Immune to For saves fullstop" (p. 8) and not "Immune to For saves BUT those that affects objects"
xanatos said:72 and 64 where with the Elite Array.
Kerrick said:Ahh. Question: What do you with a spell system that goes above 9th-level spells (like, as someone mentioned, metamagic spells, or the level-based epic spell system our group uses)?
Kerrick said:Yeah, they have 1/10, 1/8, 1/4, 1/3, and 1/2 - what about the odd ones?
Kerrick said:Okay, got my notes now. I didn't miss much the first time, thankfully.
Kerrick said:The ability scores rated at 0 isn't totally accurate - it should be a -, since they're unratable.
Kerrick said:The layout is very nice, BTW - easy to read, and easy to find stuff, and I especially like how it follows the monster stablock - makes it a lot easier to go down and tally up the mods now.
Wulf Ratbane said:Stop the press...
So are you saying that a creature with 4 HD has to pay an additional cost to raise one attribute by +1?
Or are you saying that cost is subsumed into the cost of his HD. So a creature with 4 HD gets +1 attribute for free, but then pays an additional cost for +2 and beyond? 8 HD would get +2 for free, but pay for +3 an above, etc.
Sorcica said:Hi Krust!
Sorcica said:First of all I will start out with a correction You rate the Giant type as +0.2 CR because of Darkvision. Only thing is, that was in 3.0. In the MM 3.5 giant type creatures have low light vision and therefore only +0.1 CR
Hope I haven't destroyed your day.
Sorcica said:And now please help! Anyone! I have tried to calculate the CR of some creatures and no matter how I try I can't get the numbers UK get. So I must be doing something wrong, wrong, wrong and I don't know what it is....
Sorcica said:So if someone would please give me a hand here. Let's start with the Ogre, an old favorite of mine. Krust rate it at 5.225 CR. Here's what I get:
4 giant HD (0.55*4) = 2.2
Large size = 1.2
+5 natural armor = 0.5
Lowlight vision 0.1
Full Attack (2d8) = 0.9
This totals 5.1 CR. Where does the rest come from? What am I forgetting? And it gets worse when you take into consideration that the Ogre should have a -0.6 CR adjustment for its crappy ability scores, which ends up making the Ogre CR 4.5!
Sorcica said:Next the Doppelganger. Krust rate it at 4.43.
4 monstrous humanoid HD (0.6*4) = 2.4
+4 natural armor = 0.4
Darkvision = 0.2
Change Shape = 0.5
Detect Thoughts (18*2*0.005) = 0.18
Immune to sleep & charm = 0.2
Skill bonuses (+8) = 0.16
This gives 4.04 CR. Now add +1.4 CR for ability scores and you got a full CR more than Krusty's rating.
Sorcica said:Last one, the elf warrior. UK got it at 1.285.
Elf traits = 0.36
Warrior lvl = 0.7
lvl of npc equipment = 0.125
Total = 1.185. Where does the last 0.1 come from?
So I'm confused and admitting it.
kreynolds said:Couple questions about templates. Let's say you have a template that changes your creature type to outsider and adds +4 to Strength. Your monster creation tips suggest allowing outsiders to use the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) as their base. However, humans use the standard array (13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8). Now, when you're calculating up the CR for the +4 to Strength, do you need to change the assumed array for the character from standard to elite now that they're an outsider? Or do you just ignore that and figure up the CR modifier for the +4 to Strength at +0.4 and call it a day?
kreynolds said:Also, since templates do not typically include hit die, how do the golden and silver rules apply to them? Can you only actually apply these rules to the CR of a template _after_ the template has been applied to a creature? It doesn't seem to me that you can apply either rules to the template until you have the base creature's CR to work with as well.
xanatos said:I consider Good Rolls to be Players Helper and, as such, I don't put them in the equation (unless they are TOO much good rolls... Then I know that I have to raise a little the CR of the enemyes... But I don't raise the CR/PEL of the Party... So yes... They get more PX)
In the same way I don't calculate how much good or bad are the spells of the spellcaster of the party, or how much big is the sword of the warrior.
Upper_Krust said:You forgot his Equipment.
You forgot his Full Attack.
Elves have over 100gp worth of equipment. The equivalent of 2nd-level NPC wealth. +0.25
with 72 point spread you can have 18, 18, 18, 6, 6, 6.
with 25 point buy you can't.
????? We where speaking of including or not including attributes in Size. It's something totally different. I was pointing out that there isn't any single table with absolute numbers (and not relative, like the one of the MM) that contains every modifier for size. I even think that, if you wanted to give "standard" attributes based on size, you should have used the table of page 295 (MM3.5)(table 5-1) (the one that gives examples of attributes for various sizes) (the funny thing is that those numbers are a little different from the values you can obtain using the "relative" table.Okay. Then how can you criticise me for not rating Ability Scores exactly when you yourself wouldn't rate them exactly anyway?