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

[ciaran00]

Hey, what's the CR modifier for a creature with NO movement rate, or who is restricted to a specific spot?

Probably none, right? You would just have to factor a Dex 0 in.

ciaran

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Anabstercorian mate!

Hey, what's the CR modifier for a creature with NO movement rate, or who is restricted to a specific spot?

Treat as Dexterity 0 as ciaran mentioned (thanks ciaran mate).

 

[Anabstercorian]

Hmm - Allright. Thanks.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Questions for UK

Ability Damage/Drain Design Parameters
1) Why does every monster in the MM seem to break these parameters? (From Wraith to Shadow to lowly Stirge...)
My recommendation is: Damage x2 HD, Drain x1 HD (maximum on single attack).

POISON
1) What does "HALF" mean in this category? Half hit points? Half an ability score?
2) Why does 3d6 Con (which would kill the average human) cost more than Death? Death seems under costed to me (especially depending on your answer to #1).
3) Poison (Primary) < 1/2 Hit Dice
Poison (Secondary) < 1/4 Hit Dice
eg. A creature with 7 HD should be allowed up to 1d6 (Primary) and
2d6 (Secondary) damage.
Somehow that math on those design parameters doesn't add up...

SUMMONING
The base cost for summoning is (Summoned Creature CR) x (Spell Level) x Usage x Chance of Success

AND: Spell Level is always equal to 1/2 Summoned Creature CR.

Seems you can just drop that, since we're not really talking about spell level.

Thus, cost = (1/2)(Summoned Creature CR)^2(Usage)(% Success).

Why don't you use the spell level listed in the ability, after all? (eg, the Pit Fiend's is 8th level-- not 11th).

I will have more of these questions throughout the day...

Wulf

 

[ciaran00]

This has been asked before in this thread, but not replied to to any satisfactory extent. Say a character with 100 Con takes on the vampire template... shouldn't his CR change proportionally to Con lost? It should, at least, in comparison to the character with 50 Con who takes on the vampire template. In this case factoring in a "0 Con" doesn't address the issue of Con points lost...

Also, this is a bit weird: Say a character pays for many or all of those Con points with the free ones that he gets 1 every 4 levels. It's crap to say that he simply loses them, isn't it?

If the template CR is to be added ONLY, then it's only fair that the character be able to redistribute those lost Con points to something else (he doesn't even keep the base 10 in Con).

ciaran

 

[Cheiromancer]

I have an observation concerning Table 3-1: Class Ratings.

Proficiencies are being counted at every level, but logically should only be counted once. After all, once a character is proficient in heavy armor and all martial weapons, he can multi-class freely without losing anything. If these numbers are valid for single-class characters over the course of 20 levels, then the value of the proficiencies could be front-loaded onto the first level. At least for the purpose of comparing classes.

A first level fighter as a 1.33 bonus to his CR (20 levels of proficiencies at 0.07 each). A wizard, in contrast gets some simple weapon proficiencies, at 0.19. In other words, at low levels the fighter is better than the wizard. However, with proficiencies out of the equation, each level of fighter is worth 103.21, while a level of wizard is worth 122.01. That's a difference of 18.8 per level The fighter's increased bonus (1.33-.19 = 1.12) disappears after 6 levels (6 x 18.8 = 112.8). So an 7th level fighter should be as combat worthy as a 7th level wizard; above that the wizard is better.

The case is even more dramatic with clerics; not only do they get most of proficiencies which are so important at low levels, but they have 1.26 CR per level. But I think everyone knows that cleric is the most powerful class.

Neat, huh?

I am not suggesting that the principle of 1 PC level = +1 CR be abandoned. It's a useful approximation. I'm just saying that if you recalculate class ratings with the recognition that the proficiencies are front-loaded, you can see why low level fighters shine in relation to low level wizards, but that the situation is reversed at higher levels.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Wulf mate!

Ability Damage/Drain Design Parameters
1) Why does every monster in the MM seem to break these parameters? (From Wraith to Shadow to lowly Stirge...)

Obviously all the MM monsters are wrong.

My recommendation is: Damage x2 HD, Drain x1 HD (maximum on single attack).

I'll look into it.

POISON
1) What does "HALF" mean in this category? Half hit points? Half an ability score?

It means Half an Ability Score. As per the Neh-Thallgu in the ELH.

2) Why does 3d6 Con (which would kill the average human) cost more than Death? Death seems under costed to me (especially depending on your answer to #1).

True enough. Death should be +1.2 (Primary) and Half should be +0.6 (Primary).

3) Poison (Primary) < 1/2 Hit Dice
Poison (Secondary) < 1/4 Hit Dice
eg. A creature with 7 HD should be allowed up to 1d6 (Primary) and
2d6 (Secondary) damage.
Somehow that math on those design parameters doesn't add up...

Yes someone else pointed this out, I'll try and rectify it for v4.2

SUMMONING
The base cost for summoning is (Summoned Creature CR) x (Spell Level) x Usage x Chance of Success

AND: Spell Level is always equal to 1/2 Summoned Creature CR.

Seems you can just drop that, since we're not really talking about spell level.

Thus, cost = (1/2)(Summoned Creature CR)^2(Usage)(% Success).

Interesting. I like simplifying stuff.

Why don't you use the spell level listed in the ability, after all? (eg, the Pit Fiend's is 8th level-- not 11th).

Probably because I don't think they made sense.

I will have more of these questions throughout the day...

Thanks for the feedback mate.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi ciaran mate!

This has been asked before in this thread, but not replied to to any satisfactory extent. Say a character with 100 Con takes on the vampire template... shouldn't his CR change proportionally to Con lost? It should, at least, in comparison to the character with 50 Con who takes on the vampire template. In this case factoring in a "0 Con" doesn't address the issue of Con points lost...

Good point.

I'll add that into v4.2 (same for Lich too)

Also, this is a bit weird: Say a character pays for many or all of those Con points with the free ones that he gets 1 every 4 levels. It's crap to say that he simply loses them, isn't it?

Well I would certainly modify the characters ECL to compensate, but I certainly wouldn't let them re-choose another ability score.

If the template CR is to be added ONLY, then it's only fair that the character be able to redistribute those lost Con points to something else (he doesn't even keep the base 10 in Con).

I disagree. I would say those Constitution Ability Score points are lost for good, except for very rare cases whereby a Template actually imposed a negative ECL penalty.

Take your example of the character with Con 100. Becoming a vampire would actually impose a negative penalty -10 for Con loss; +7 for Vampire Template (Net loss -3). I think it would be up to the DM to address this (albeit very unlikely) situation.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Cheiromancer mate!

I have an observation concerning Table 3-1: Class Ratings.

I appreciate the feedback.

Proficiencies are being counted at every level, but logically should only be counted once. After all, once a character is proficient in heavy armor and all martial weapons, he can multi-class freely without losing anything. If these numbers are valid for single-class characters over the course of 20 levels, then the value of the proficiencies could be front-loaded onto the first level. At least for the purpose of comparing classes.

A first level fighter as a 1.33 bonus to his CR (20 levels of proficiencies at 0.07 each). A wizard, in contrast gets some simple weapon proficiencies, at 0.19. In other words, at low levels the fighter is better than the wizard. However, with proficiencies out of the equation, each level of fighter is worth 103.21, while a level of wizard is worth 122.01. That's a difference of 18.8 per level The fighter's increased bonus (1.33-.19 = 1.12) disappears after 6 levels (6 x 18.8 = 112.8). So an 7th level fighter should be as combat worthy as a 7th level wizard; above that the wizard is better.

The case is even more dramatic with clerics; not only do they get most of proficiencies which are so important at low levels, but they have 1.26 CR per level. But I think everyone knows that cleric is the most powerful class.

Neat, huh?

I am not suggesting that the principle of 1 PC level = +1 CR be abandoned. It's a useful approximation. I'm just saying that if you recalculate class ratings with the recognition that the proficiencies are front-loaded, you can see why low level fighters shine in relation to low level wizards, but that the situation is reversed at higher levels.

I agree, but unless someone wants to outline the specific CRs for every individual class level I don't see what else I can do about it!?

Also even when you do that you are going to simply confuse things more than clarify them.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I agree, but unless someone wants to outline the specific CRs for every individual class level I don't see what else I can do about it!?

I like to draw a distinction in this system between being accurate and being pedantic.

This borders on the pedantic.

The individual class CRs aren't USED for anything in the system-- their only purpose is to give a hint to the basis of the Silver Rule-- so picking them apart or trying to tweak them serves no useful purpose.

For the bulk of the system, 1 Character Level = 1 CR is the only way to go. You have to accept that assumption and move on.

Frankly, I find the entire Silver Rule to be damn near useless (no offense intended). I don't think the system needs that level of "accuracy," especially since it's only as accurate as UK's completely arbitrary breakdown of each class ability's design factor.

Multiplying the typical CR by .85 isn't likely to have much of an effect on EL, anyway.

CR 1 = EL 1, CR .85 = EL 1
CR 2 = EL 5, CR (2)(.85) = EL 4
CR 4 = EL 9, CR (4)(.85) = EL 8
CR 8 = EL 13, CR (8)(.85) = EL 12
CR 9 = EL 13, CR (9)(.85) = EL 13...

Basically, for a CR on the bottom edge of an EL "range," it can make a difference of 1 EL. Not worth sweating about.

That's my knee-jerk reaction...


Wulf