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

[Dark Wolf 97]

Got it now! I'll have some feedback soon.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi UK,

Hi there Drow Jones!

A long time lurker de-cloaking...

Well you have to de-cloak before you can fire.

FRCS has Dark Elves, Duergar (both +2) and Svirfneblin (+3) and no extra HDs.

Well the CRs for those creatures were for their Monster Manual entries.

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

Well I think what you might be after is the Racial Traits for those two races:

Drow: +1.106 (+0.1/Level*)
Svirfneblin: +1.583 (+0.1/Level*)

*Spell Resistance

BTW, congrats on v4. Keep up the great work! We can't wait for Immortals Handbook...

Thanks a lot. I appreciate the support mate.

PS: You've propably read Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen -series? If not, I recommend it highly for everyone interested in epic campaigns.

I haven't read them but I will definately ask for them next time I am at the library. Thanks.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

UK-- Here's an alternative that is quite a bit quicker:

ENCOUNTER LEVELS FOR MULTIPLE OPPONENTS

1. Total all of the CR's of all creatures.

2. Find the EL of this CR using table 2-1.

3. Adjust this EL according to the number of creatures using table 2-3. HOWEVER, do not ADD to the EL, SUBTRACT the EL:

1 = EL -0
2 = EL -2
3 = EL -3
4-5 = EL -4
6-7 = EL -5

continue using the table...

For some mixed groups that are on the "cusp" of a particular CR/EL break, this method can be off by 1. [EDIT] However, this is probably a bit more accurate, as you don't have the effect of multiple "rounding down."

Example:

1 Great Wyrm Red Dragon (CR59)
3 Balors (CR28, +84CR)
10 Vrock (CR13, +130 CR)
14 Babau (CR8, +112 CR)
Total creatures 28, Total CR = 385

Table 2-1: CR 385 = EL 35

Table 2-3: 28 Creatures, EL - 8

Final EL = 35 - 8 = EL 27

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey UK--

Hiya mate!

I have found a bit of a discrepancy I was hoping you could help out with.

Fire away.

It seems to me that the EL of a mixed group of NPCs is different depending on whether they are "monsters" or "players characters."

If they are monsters, it seems we find their EL by considering them a "mixed group;" in a mixed group, the EL is always at least as great as the highest level "base" creatures EL. You can't reduce EL by "mixing" a group.

Okay, I am with you so far.

Remember of course that PEL is always four less than EL.

eg. A 24th-level character (on its own) would be PEL 15; whereas a 24th-level opponent would be EL 19.

A difference between PEL and EL of +4 constitutes an even 50/50 encounter remember.

The same is not true of the process presented for Party Level. In this case, you are advised to add all character levels, divide by the number of characters, then apply the result to table 2-1. In this case, the highest level character's EL is actually reduced from where it should be. Any lower level characters in the party drag down the overall EL.

For an example, take a 20th level character and his 12th level cohort.

Using the "mixed group" method this combo would have an EL of 100% + 33% of the highest EL (CR20, EL18; CR12, EL 15, EL-3 of the highest EL).

I confess, at this point, I'm not exactly sure what the EL of this mixed group is. (The instructions are unclear...) But, we can definitely see that the EL will be at least as high as the EL for the 20th level character.

The EL would be 18.

You need 150% before you get +1 EL, as per Table 2-4.

Technically you would be at about EL 18.66 but its EL 18 we use.

Using the second method, the party level is (20+12)/2, or 16th, with an EL of 17. We drag it down even further because there's only 2 characters (PEL -2) to EL 15.

If you do it like this the Average Level is 16.

CR 16 = EL 17, however, remember that multiple opponents (in this case 2) increase EL (by +2 in this case). So you would have EL 19 (17 + 2)

Somehow, using the two different methods, the same two creatures have totally different ELs depending on whether they are a party or an adversary.

Help me out here! Am I doing something wrong?

Using the first methd you get EL 18 (although its about EL 18.66). Using the second method you get EL 19. Not far out.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Dark Wolf mate!

Got it now! I'll have some feedback soon.

Thanks dude!

I am over on Dicefreaks as well, in the D&D Game Material Forum.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Using the second method, the party level is (20+12)/2, or 16th, with an EL of 17. We drag it down even further because there's only 2 characters (PEL -2) to EL 15.

If you do it like this the Average Level is 16.

CR 16 = EL 17, however, remember that multiple opponents (in this case 2) increase EL (by +2 in this case). So you would have EL 19 (17 + 2)

But that's not what table 2-5 says to do. Table 2-5 says that my PEL (for 2 characters) is Party Level - 2. Table 2-5 shows that the "baseline" for PEL is 4 characters. And your examples bear this out: PL 19, 2 characters = EL 15, PL 19, 4 characters = EL 17, PL 19 with 13 characters = EL 20, etc.

Using the first methd you get EL 18 (although its about EL 18.66). Using the second method you get EL 19. Not far out.

Not far out... But shouldn't they be exactly the same? I consider this an error.

Using the method I mentioned above, for what it's worth:

Total CR factors (of your example party) = 77. CR 77 = EL 25, adjusted for 4 creatures = EL 21. Four 19th level characters should be equal to EL 21.

This result only holds up to the "mixed groups" analysis, though.

I still can't figure out why the Party Encounter Level should not be identical to the EL of the same 4 "creatures" whether they are the party, or the adversary.

I believe that the error here is in the formula presented in the Party Level section-- you are reducing the effective level of the creatures involved by averaging the CR's across the party. You wouldn't do this to a group of mixed creatures, so I don't see the rationale in doing this to a mixed group of characters in a party.

CR and EL should be constant-- right?


Wulf

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

But that's not what table 2-5 says to do. Table 2-5 says that my PEL (for 2 characters) is Party Level - 2.

Yes two less than your EL.

Table 2-5 shows that the "baseline" for PEL is 4 characters. And your examples bear this out: PL 19, 2 characters = EL 15, PL 19, 4 characters = EL 17, PL 19 with 13 characters = EL 20, etc.

Yep.

Not far out... But shouldn't they be exactly the same? I consider this an error.

Its only ever going to be out by mere fractions.

Using the method I mentioned above, for what it's worth:

Total CR factors (of your example party) = 77. CR 77 = EL 25, adjusted for 4 creatures = EL 21. Four 19th level characters should be equal to EL 21.

This result only holds up to the "mixed groups" analysis, though.

I still can't figure out why the Party Encounter Level should not be identical to the EL of the same 4 "creatures" whether they are the party, or the adversary.

I believe that the error here is in the formula presented in the Party Level section-- you are reducing the effective level of the creatures involved by averaging the CR's across the party. You wouldn't do this to a group of mixed creatures, so I don't see the rationale in doing this to a mixed group of characters in a party.

CR and EL should be constant-- right?

It does seem a tiny disparity; though I think either way functions.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I'm gonna have to have you walk me through this one. Let me see if I understand.

Two 20th level player characters
Four 12th level cohorts
10x 1st level henchmen

(I consider this a reasonable party grouping, such as one might find in Piratecat's Story Hour.)

By my calculations, as a mixed group of adversaries, they are EL19. (CR total = 98, CR 98 = EL 27, sixteen creatures adjusts to EL19).

As a party, using your method, they are (98 levels / 16 characters) = Party Level 6.125.

Apply this to Table 2-1 per instructions yields EL 11.

Modify that by the number of characters in the party using Table 2-5 yields a PEL of 15.

So when this group "fights itself" we have PEL 15 vs. EL 19, which according to Table 2-6 means a 50/50 fight.

Did I get that right all the way through?

If so, I think my confusion arises because of your terminology. The "Party Encounter Level" does not mean, as it seems to imply, "The EL of this particular party."

I note that in your explanation to me above you actually make this same mistake.

Rather, PEL means, "The appropriate EL of an encounter designed to be a moderate challenge for this party."

PEL does NOT scale up according to the number of creatures in the group, as you misstated above-- that is to say, we should not apply Table 2-3 to this group. You've already taken care of the number of creatures in Table 2-5.

So to try to sum up and wrap up (unsuccessfully...) and perhaps hint at an easier walkthrough:

The EL of this group is, correctly calculated, at EL19.

A "50/50" matchup for this group is EL 19 (as you would expect).

The appropriate "moderate encounter" for this group is EL 15.

(That could be a single CR12 adversary; or it could be 6-7 CR5 adversaries, or it could be 16-31 CR3 adversaries... etc...)

You could simply find the EL of the group and then apply that result against a chart showing the breakdown:

Encounter EL - Party EL ---> Victory
-12 ---> 99.3%
-10 ---> 98.4%
-8 ---> 96.8%
-6 ---> 93.7%
-4 ---> 87.5%
-2 ---> 75%
+/- 0 ---> 50% (encouter level = party's encounter level)
+2 ---> 25%
+4 ---> 12.5%

Finally, according to my calculations, using your system, the "50/50" fight above (PEL 15 vs EL 19) would be worth Party Level (6th) x 1200 experience points, 7200 xp total, 450 xp per character.

So how'd I do with all that?


Wulf

 

[Dark Wolf 97]

Hi there mate!

Ok, in the templates section, something you might want to add is the Demilich and Worm That Walks because you list their CR, but you don't break it down, which would be nice to see.

I think the situational modifiers are a great idea, also I like the design parameters better now.

I saw your post at DiceFreaks, and I do hope you can join us more, and I also think the IH will add alot to the site. And I agree about what you said about the DiceFreaks templates, they are large and VERY open ended, and thus difficult to assess.

Looking forward (as ever) to the IH,
later dude.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

First comments

Hi there UK!

I've only had just the briefest of a readthrough of v4, but there's already issues which I think need attending.

This is just in a random order and here goes:

A long time ago, I know we were discussing this. I think we found some sort of solution, but I can't remember what. Anyway, what I'm talking about is Spell Resistance. The way your system works now, SR becomes useless and sometimes something of a liability for powerful monsters.

I'll explain: Let's take the ever popular Great Red Wyrm. It has SR 32. According to WotC it's CR 26 = EL 26. According to you it's 59 = EL 24. So in a moderate 20% resources encounter, a spell caster needs a 6 or higher to overcome SR (according to WotC). According to you, the party will be lvl 56-63, which makes the SR useless.
And here's the funny part. The useless SR has actually increased the CR of the dragon, thereby insuring that the party that defeats it will be higher lvl and therefore a even more superiour opponent. Since the SR is useless anyway, the dragon would have been better off with out SR!
This is even more true when the CR interval of a given EL is in the hundreds.
Comments? Solutions?

Also, a long time ago in a galaxy far far away you told me how to use the system with the treasure tables in the DMG. Well, I've forgotten and I can't seem to find any guidelines in the pdf. So what to do? As far as I can tell, one can't just use one with the other or am I missing something?

And speaking of treasure. What the hell is going on with the wealth?! According to the DMG, a 10th lvl character should have 49.000 gp worth of treasure. According to your system he should have 100.000 gp! That's just ridiculous!
Sorry. No offense intended. But I think this is a major rewrite of the core rules to fit your system. It will make it hard to use published adventures as the treasure there is (rightly) based on the values in the DMG.
How come you pass out so much treasure?
As a side note, if the treasure didn't represent so much value, at least at mid lvlls, you might be able to lessen the CR adjustment of wealth, so that the silver rule wouldn't be nessecary. If wealth was lower and was a + 0.1/lvl adjustment, characters wouldn't be at 116% power. Or maybe they would. Just some ideas I'm rambling off....

I don't understand the DR table. What's the difference between no elements and no elements (hardness). The effect is the same, right?

And I would pleeeease like your help with this one. I would like to keep the +1, +2, +3 notation for DR for some creatures.
For example, I think the DR for dragons is stupid. At the lvls where dragons get DR, everyone has a magic weapon. Who cares if the dragon has 20/magic or 200/magic? So I really liked your old system where each plus reduced the DR and I will be keeping and using that. So my question is, can I use the CR adjustments from v.3 and add those on top of the new CR modifiers from DR, or have the values changed alot with the new weightings of abilities in generel. Hope I'm making myself clear.

I'm really enjoying the pdf, I think it's great and will allow for some great encounters and players being able to play all sorts of races/monsters. However, some of the CRs seems low if you want to use them for ECL. Will you please explain to my non-troll playing players, how come one of them can be a fullfledeg full powered troll with PC equipment at 7th lvl??? Take a walk, human fighter.....

Please don't take these comments the wrong way. They are merely things I think needs adressing so that this great system can be even greater!

Okay, back to the pdf.

Sorcica