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

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Wulf mate!

Yep, I am assuming I can "get away with it."

Part of my rationale for it was that I think the extra attacks are what should be counted, not the damage potential itself. It just doesn't make sense to me that a giant can suddenly lose several points of CR because he puts away his sword and starts punching.

Character BAB isn't valued based on the average damage potential-- why should monsters?

I went with Mike Mearls' suggestion from the Monster's Handbook, which is basically this: 2 attacks at full BAB are free. Each extra full attack is valued at 0.5, each iterative attack at 0.25.

Thats fine for PCs but not really appropriate for monsters (especially epic monsters) where the potential discrepancies can be vast.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Thats fine for PCs but not really appropriate for monsters (especially epic monsters) where the potential discrepancies can be vast.

Well, you and I both know my dirty little secret: I'm not too concerned with epic. That's my primary "I can get away with it!" motivator.

But, I tend to think you mean, not so much "epic" monsters, as "colossal +++" monsters. Epic or not, dice are dice, and base average damage is the same, neh?

So it's overcosted for anything with an average "dice only" damage under 5, and undercosted for anything with an average "dice only" damage more than 5.

On the low end, the Golden Rule will tend to even out the overcosting. On the high end, the EL system itself will minimize the effects of varying CR; that is to say, the difference in CR-- probably a few fractions of CR-- is unlikely to cause a shift in EL. A few examples would bear this out (though I know, you can always find CR's on the cusp of an EL that will disprove my theory!)

Technically, if I wanted to be even more accurate in "converting" mearls' system to yours, I'd put the costs at .75 for full attack and .375 for iterative attacks (because of the 2/3 conversion from "core" CR to I.H. CR).

This would mean the "break point" for damage is around 2d6 "dice only." Anything under 2d6 per attack is paying extra, anything over 2d6 per attack is getting some damage on the cheap.

ASIDE: I might note that in your design considerations, size directly affects the base dice of damage. In some respects, forcing big, epic creatures to pay extra for the average damage their increased size will grant them is like making them pay twice for their size component.


Wulf

 

[CRGreathouse]

ASIDE: I might note that in your design considerations, size directly affects the base dice of damage. In some respects, forcing big, epic creatures to pay extra for the average damage their increased size will grant them is like making them pay twice for their size component.

More concerning, to me, is that the current document makes no attempt to distinguish from primary and secondary attacks, nor from attacks with 1.5 Str, Str, and 1/2 Str, which is usually more important. Consider a creature that's already paid for Str 18; a swarm attack (3d6) is overcosted, a bite (2d6+6) is undercosted, and two claws (1d8+4) are about right.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

More concerning, to me, is that the current document makes no attempt to distinguish from primary and secondary attacks, nor from attacks with 1.5 Str, Str, and 1/2 Str, which is usually more important. Consider a creature that's already paid for Str 18; a swarm attack (3d6) is overcosted, a bite (2d6+6) is undercosted, and two claws (1d8+4) are about right.

Hmmm. Not sure I agree. At least, the design parameters increase/decrease the damage for size certain kinds of attacks (+/- size categories for bites, pincers, etc.) and whether or not it is the "dominant appendage."

If you absolutely had to fix it, I bet it would take only a few minutes of looking to find a workable solution (ie "Any attack the gains +1 size category or more is 1.5 Str to damage; any attack that loses -1 size category or more is 1/2 Str to damage" or something along those lines.

At no point would I say that I was "concerned" with the v5 document. You cannot account for everything, and even if you had the hubris to think you could, you can't eliminate the wisdom of the GM as the most important balancing element.

Wulf

 

[CRGreathouse]

Hmmm. Not sure I agree. At least, the design parameters increase/decrease the damage for size certain kinds of attacks (+/- size categories for bites, pincers, etc.) and whether or not it is the "dominant appendage."

If you absolutely had to fix it, I bet it would take only a few minutes of looking to find a workable solution (ie "Any attack the gains +1 size category or more is 1.5 Str to damage; any attack that loses -1 size category or more is 1/2 Str to damage" or something along those lines.

Well, I phrased it poorly perhaps -- but I still think it's a big deal. Consider Str 100 creatures: the first has a bite (1d8+67) and the other has a single claw (6d6+45). It's not much without Epic creatures, but when you include them it matters a lot. (Consider my 'tarrasque swarm' -- 7200d8 damage, but no Strength modifier.)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, I phrased it poorly perhaps -- but I still think it's a big deal. Consider Str 100 creatures: the first has a bite (1d8+67) and the other has a single claw (6d6+45). It's not much without Epic creatures, but when you include them it matters a lot. (Consider my 'tarrasque swarm' -- 7200d8 damage, but no Strength modifier.)

I'm not sure what the problem is.

1d8 + 67 = avg. damage 71.5

6d6 + 45 = avg. damage 66

Somehow I don't think that the hypothetical epic characters fighting this hypothetical epic 100 Str creature are going to quibble over +/- 5 hit points of damage.

Wulf

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'm not sure what the problem is.

1d8 + 67 = avg. damage 71.5

6d6 + 45 = avg. damage 66

Somehow I don't think that the hypothetical epic characters fighting this hypothetical epic 100 Str creature are going to quibble over +/- 5 hit points of damage.

The damages are very similar, but one's rated might higher than the other -- the less damaging one, in fact. That's the problem.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The damages are very similar, but one's rated might higher than the other -- the less damaging one, in fact. That's the problem.

Hmm... We aren't on the same page. I guess I don't feel like I have the whole gist of your situation.

EDIT: I just took your examples at face value, but I don't know why one creature would have a 1d8 base bite and the other a 6d6 base claw. Presumably the two creatures we are comparing are the same size? In which case, the bite should be x1.5 the base dice of the claw.

Taking a look at the MM3.5 last night, I noticed that they give guidelines for Str bonuses to damage.

Damage: Damage changes with Strength. If the creature uses a two-handed weapon or has a single natural weapon, it adds 1-1/2 times its Strength bonus to the damage. If it has more than a single attack then it adds its Strength bonus to damage rolls for the primary attack and 1/2 its Strength bonus to all secondary attacks.

Seems a pretty straightforward guideline.

Wulf

 

[CRGreathouse]

EDIT: I just took your examples at face value, but I don't know why one creature would have a 1d8 base bite and the other a 6d6 base claw. Presumably the two creatures we are comparing are the same size? In which case, the bite should be x1.5 the base dice of the claw.

Taking a look at the MM3.5 last night, I noticed that they give guidelines for Str bonuses to damage.



Seems a pretty straightforward guideline.

Some creatures have larger or smaller values becuase their natural weapons are better or worse. The dire bear (Large) has twice the base bite damage the dire ape (Large) has.

The Str guidelines make sense and I follow them, in general, but they're not really relevant here -- give the creature with x1 damage a pointless second attack or something for a full writeup. (That won't bring its damage high enough to match the other, and it will increase CR further.)

Yes, I know the rules, but the CR guidelines don't care what circumstance the rules put the attacks in; they're all rated as if they were the same.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Some creatures have larger or smaller values becuase their natural weapons are better or worse. The dire bear (Large) has twice the base bite damage the dire ape (Large) has.

First off, I'm not arguing with you, just thinking out loud with you.

The Dire Ape is getting the short end of the stick.

A Large creature has a base damage of 1d8. The ape's claw is underpowerd (-1 step to 1d6) as is its bite-- but, its bite DOES follow UK's guideline of being +1 step above the claw (1d8 vs. 1d6).

The Bear is closer to target. It's claw is basically right on (2d4 vs. 1d8 is ok); it's bite is 2d8, which means it must be considered a "dominant appendage" and is thus +2 steps (and x2 damage) from the claw.

In both cases, you'll note that the Str bonus to damage follows the MM3.5 guidelines. The claw is the primary attack for both creatures (x1 Str bonus to damage) and the bite is secondary (x1/2 Str bonus to damage).

So you seem to be asking, how does UK's system account for the difference between the Ape and the Bear? Section 8, FULL ATTACK. (Strength is not a factor here-- increased strength is paid for either by Size or by directly adding to Ability Scores).

The Dire Ape pays (1d6 + 1d6) x 0.1, plus (1d8 x 0.05) = .7 + .225 = .925.

The Dire Bear pays (2d4 + 2d4) x 0.1, plus (2d8 x 0.05) = 1.0 + .45 = 1.45.

The Bear pays more for its attacks and, in the end, is twice the total CR of the Ape.

Now all that's out on the table-- what exactly is the problem?


Wulf