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

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

Okay a bit later than I expected, but I always get there in the end.

For those of you who don't already know what this pdf is:

Appendix One (Challenging Challenge Ratings) details how to accurately determine a monsters Challenge Rating (all core and epic monster CRs are given at the end of the appendix).
Appendix Two (Encountering Encounter Levels) outlines how Challenge Ratings properly relate to Encounter Levels .
Appendix Three (Design Parameters) gives some advice on how to balance class and monster design.

Benefits of this system
• Accuracy: it generates much more accurate results.
• Balance: provides guidelines for homebrew monster design.
• Certainty: removes guesswork, which often leads to mistakes.
• Exploratory: promotes experimentation with the system.
• Flexibility: provides more campaign flexibility (such as restructuring for Low Magic campaigns).
• Integral: easily integrated into the current rules.
• Modular: can be adjusted and tailored by individual DMs.
• Necessity: is a virtual necessity at epic levels, otherwise any thoughts of balance quickly unravel.
• Sensible: elements like Monster Advancement now credibly handled.
• Unlimited: functions at any conceivable measure of power.

Thanks to everyone for their support, and let me know what you think. I appreciate all constructive criticism.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

First!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Wulf mate!

First!

Would you let me know if its all working okay mate? Just to be sure.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Would you let me know if its all working okay mate? Just to be sure.

Well, the PDF seems to have printed ok, if that's what you mean.

As for whether the system is working or not... checks for ability score increases...

EDIT: Section 10: UK, this explanation is perfect. I, personally, thank you!

The only change I would make, as a DM, is simply to mention how "lucky rolls" can and will affect the actual challenge of any given encounter. What's appropriate, encounter wise, for an average ability array is going to be easier for a character (or an entire party) with lucky rolls, and I think DM's deserve to know that.

The one glaring omission from my point of view is your Section 15/Copyright notice.


Wulf

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

Well, the PDF seems to have printed ok, if that's what you mean.

Thats it thanks.

As for whether the system is working or not... checks for ability score increases...

EDIT: Section 10: UK, this explanation is perfect. I, personally, thank you!

Put your trust in Krust!

The only change I would make, as a DM, is simply to mention how "lucky rolls" can and will affect the actual challenge of any given encounter. What's appropriate, encounter wise, for an average ability array is going to be easier for a character (or an entire party) with lucky rolls, and I think DM's deserve to know that.

I would simply add +1 CR for every +10 'relevant' bonus ability points (above elite array). By relevant I mean is the stat relevant to the class? I mean a Fighter will benefit more from a Strength increase than a Charisma increase.

The one glaring omission from my point of view is your Section 15/Copyright notice.

Cheeky.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I am noticing a lot of spots that could be clearer-- in some cases it seems to me that you know what you are talking about and make assumptions that the reader will, too. This is a common and natural tendency after spending so long with your own document.

Example: page 3, Size modifiers. What does the Colossal +, ++, +++ mean? And why does the CR start to reduce? (I assume these are Epic notations?)

Would you like for me to start making a comprehensive list?


Wulf

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

I am noticing a lot of spots that could be clearer-- in some cases it seems to me that you know what you are talking about and make assumptions that the reader will, too. This is a common and natural tendency after spending so long with your own document.

Undoubtedly. Probably also a result of wanting to keep the page number down where possible.

Example: page 3, Size modifiers. What does the Colossal +, ++, +++ mean? And why does the CR start to reduce? (I assume these are Epic notations?)

Colossal + is from the Epic Rules, but I explain the others in the Immortals Handbook. Feel free to ignore them. I may change certain aspects of them before the Immortals Handbook is released, I'm not happy with sizes above Colossal at the moment.

Would you like for me to start making a comprehensive list?

Sure. Thanks.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Yes!

Whooohoooooooooo!!!

At last, The Gather.... Erh, I mean finally we get v4. Oh, how I've waited.
You can expect a hail of questions and comments from me UK!

Now, must read.

 

[maggot]

First of all, great work. Thank you very much.

Now for some questions:

How come damage for breath weapons and touch attacks are expressed in dice of damage? Shouldn't it be average damage. It makes it tough to convert 10d10 fire damage into CR.

There is a discrepency between the breath weapon CR multiple for ranged single target effect (x1) and the example gorgon (x1.5).

How is the ghoul's touch attack CR+0.1 when the value is CR+0.1/spell level? What spell is the touch simulating? I would say at least CR+0.2.

Should a creature that gains abilities with stat bonuses (such as an incorporeal undead gaining deflection bonus with gains in charisma) receive a CR adjustment because of this? I'm thinking of a spectre sorcerer gets a whole lot more out of eagle's splendor than a kobold sorcerer?

And maybe in the same vein, shouldn't a creature that has multiple attacks have more of a CR increase when its strength increases? All the damage CRs listed was without strength, but a point of strength does a lot more for a marilith's multiple attacks than for a nightwalker.

Should a bonus feat that is selectable such as a human bonus feat be worth more than a fixed bonus feat? (I'm not sure, but a creature just like a human but with power attack as a bonus feat seams weaker than a human in a lot of ways.)

I noticed elves did not get adjustments for their martial weapons, and dwarves did not get adjustments for their weapon familiarity.

Now an overall design question: If a party of four 20th level charcters (PEL 20) took on a balor (EL20), the would get 6000xp (300*party level) and use about 25% of their resources (table 2-6). If the same party tackled two balors at the same time (EL 22), the xp would be 12000 (600*party level) and they would use about 50% of their resources (table 2-6). But this second result is the same as fighting two combats each against one balor. I would say that fighting two balors at once is significantly harder than fighting one balor at a time twice. I realize this is a problem with the standard CR system as well, but I would like a solution for this flaw.

Again, thank you for all your hard work. Sorry for the long post, but I'm really exited about all this work, and would love to put it into play.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

I have been trying to post in ENWorld for a while but its very slow, so if I don't get to respond tonight I will tomorrow morning.

Hey Sorcica mate!

Whooohoooooooooo!!!

At last, The Gather.... Erh, I mean finally we get v4. Oh, how I've waited.

Its taken a lot longer than expected (primarily because of the revised CRs).

You can expect a hail of questions and comments from me UK!

Appreciate the feedback mate!