Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 1314558" data-attributes="member: 94">Well, you and I both know my dirty little secret: I'm not too concerned with epic. That's my primary &quot;I can get away with it!&quot; motivator.But, I tend to think you mean, not so much &quot;epic&quot; monsters, as &quot;colossal +++&quot; monsters. Epic or not, dice are dice, and base average damage is the same, neh? So it's overcosted for anything with an average &quot;dice only&quot; damage under 5, and undercosted for anything with an average &quot;dice only&quot; 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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;converting&quot; 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 &quot;core&quot; CR to I.H. CR).This would mean the &quot;break point&quot; for damage is around 2d6 &quot;dice only.&quot; 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</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wulf Ratbane, post: 1314558, member: 94"] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification