|
If you truly want to use correct math, I direct you to the Encounter Calculator.
http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20encountercalculator.htm
It uses all the math that you talk about.
I disagree with this whole argument that EL and CR are the same, they are not. Challenge rating is derived from the monsters ability to take on a party of 4. EL is the combination of monsters of various CR to equal the CR of a monster appropiate for a party of 4.
WelbyBumpus added ...
While I actually agree ... (SNIP by Rezdave)This is a personal pet peeve (SNIP by Rezdave)You seem to have a good handle on the EL/CR system generally, but I have to disagree with you. You're mixing apples and oranges. The CR/EL system is designed with a party of 4 in mind. Although you can put that party of 4 up against challenges consisting of one, two or more enemies, the CR/EL system is not designed--and cannot be used--to judge how a party of one or a party of two will handle an encounter. The CR/EL system isn't designed for that. Your contention about what a "party of one" can or can't take on isn't supportable by the CR/EL rules.
Now, this doesn't invalidate your point generally about the ability of a fighter of level N to go toe-to-toe with an enemy of CR N. But you can't use the CR/EL system, as presented in the rules, to show that.
Frank Trollman is correct (with a caveat). I'll use an example to show you that if the PCs met themselves they would be facing an EL X+4 encounter.
An adventuring party consisting of a fighter 7th, cleric 7th, wizard 7th and rogue 7th is wanding through the dungeon and they come upon a mirror of opposition. What EL is the resulting encounter?
If only the 7th level fighter steps out then the encounter is an EL 7 encounter. 7th level fighters have a CR of 7.
If the fighter and the mage step out then its a EL 9 encounter, both the fighter 7th and the mage 7th are CR 7 creatures and two CR 7 creatures is an EL 9 encounter.
If all four adventurers step out then its an EL 11 encounter. All of them are CR 7 creatures and four CR 7 creatures have an EL of 11.
Hence a party of four characters facing themselves are facing an encounter that is EL X +4 and in theory faces an encounter that they should beat 50% of the time.
OK on to the caveat.
Actually if the party faces itself then its arguable that their facing encounters stronger then their own CR. Technically a 7th level fighter should be made with the NPC wealth by level guidelines and not the PC wealth by level guidelines.
My experience at the table generally finds that the PCs don't actually loose against X+4 encounters 50% of the time. If they quickly recognize the threat they usually have an ace up their sleeve in the form of their very high wealth (based on the PC version of the wealth by level guidelines).
Hence if the party immediately starts burning powerful one shot magic items like there is no tomorrow they should have just enough of an edge to win unless the dice really turn against them. Essentially the fighter player drinks that potion of barkskin +5 he has squirreled away. The mage takes out that scroll with a spell two spell levels above what he can normally cast and uses it (hoping that the dice don't turn on him and the spell goes off instead of backfiring) etc.
Frank Trollman answeredYou seem to have a good handle on the EL/CR system generally, but I have to disagree with you. You're mixing apples and oranges. The CR/EL system is designed with a party of 4 in mind. Although you can put that party of 4 up...I direct you to page 48 of the DMG, where it discusses larger or smaller parties and appropriate Encounter Levels for them.
-Frank
I didn't have my DMG at work, so I needed to check this at home. The DMG doesn't support your point. That is, the DMG mentions in vague, hand-waving terms that you should adjust the EL of the encounter for larger or smaller parties (and XP will adjust as a result), but it doesn't support the actual math you propose (that an EL 7 encounter is the equivalent of a level+2 encounter to a party of 2, or a level+4 encounter to a party of 1).
You might assume this result from the vague statement on page 48, or want to apply the logic behind the CR/EL calculations "backwards" like that, but I don't think the rules support that and, more importantly, aren't designed for that.
If it works for a party of 4 PCs of 5th level to balance against a 9th Level BBEG Necromancer, why is it somehow nonfunctional and unbalanced for a single 9th Level Paladin to be accosted by a group of 4 bandits of 5th level in a solo-play session?
Simply because that isn't the way the system was designed. If it were designed that way, the EL/CR rules would be clear about it. They're not, which implies that the "party of 4" is the default assumption. The discussion of larger or smaller parties implies that the system can accomodate that in a casual and clumsy way, even thought it wasn't designed to.
Challenge rating is derived from the monsters ability to take on a party of 4.
I think Flip hits on a key point here. For example, the designers have mentioned that undead are CR'd the way they are assuming that there is no cleric in the party. Having a cleric makes encounters with undead much easier than the CR/EL system intended. This shows that the designers are calculating CR on a "what can a party of 4 take on?" basis, not on a "what character level is this monster the equivalent of?" basis. Thus, it's no surprise to find monsters of a particular CR that are much harder or softer than a character of that level: the system just isn't designed for that.
Although the best way to get to an answer, I think, would be to ask the designers.
I actually know how CR and EL's work (contrary to what Frank says). I've written enough published adventures to know that. My contention is that a 7th-level NPC fighter is not as powerful as a CR 7 hill giant because that's how the game and the EL system has been designed. The designers never intended a 7th-level fighter to tackle a CR 7 threat by himself, but with the aid of a party of 3 other characters. This is true of not just the fighter, but of most of the standard classes. There are exceptions to this rule (both CR wise and class wise), but they are rare.
In the Book of Templates they actually showed the method for determining CR and in 80% - 90% of cases it works perfectly. Now if you apply these same rules to classed creatures you'll discover that a 7th-level fighter is actually only a CR 4 or CR 5 threat. The same goes with the other base classes. Should this be the case? Probably not, but the CR and EL system has been designed for groups not individuals.
Not only is this discrepancy at low-levels, but begins accumulating even more rapidly at higher levels. That's why most 20th-level fighters would be absolutely creamed if they fought a pit fiend by themselves. And if you think that's bad consider a fight between a 20th-level rogue and a pit fiend. In reality, both 20th-level characters are actually more like CR 15 or CR 16 threats.
|
Guys, you're making this much harder than it needs to be. Its all really very simple. When preparing an encounter, do the following.
On one sheet of paper, fill out information for player characters and what they're capable of. Personalities of the characters help, too.
On a second sheet of paper, list basic information for the NPCs, the flavor of them, and what you wish to do.
Get a third sheet of paper and leave it blank.
Sacrifice a goat.
Soak the third sheet of paper in the goat's blood and let dry. Then take all three papers, fold them up and place into an envelope. Seal it and place it under your pillow before you go to bed.
Wake up and read the encounter which has been properly balanced for your players.
Under no circumstances, use anything other than a goat, or you risk losing your soul.
:)
I actually know how CR and EL's work (contrary to what Frank says). I've written enough published adventures to know that. My contention is that a 7th-level NPC fighter is not as powerful as a CR 7 hill giant because that's how the game and the EL system has been designed. The designers never intended a 7th-level fighter to tackle a CR 7 threat by himself, but with the aid of a party of 3 other characters. This is true of not just the fighter, but of most of the standard classes. There are exceptions to this rule (both CR wise and class wise), but they are rare.
In the Book of Templates they actually showed the method for determining CR and in 80% - 90% of cases it works perfectly. Now if you apply these same rules to classed creatures you'll discover that a 7th-level fighter is actually only a CR 4 or CR 5 threat. The same goes with the other base classes. Should this be the case? Probably not, but the CR and EL system has been designed for groups not individuals.
Not only is this discrepancy at low-levels, but begins accumulating even more rapidly at higher levels. That's why most 20th-level fighters would be absolutely creamed if they fought a pit fiend by themselves. And if you think that's bad consider a fight between a 20th-level rogue and a pit fiend. In reality, both 20th-level characters are actually more like CR 15 or CR 16 threats.
I'm not sure I buy this once you include the magic these guys are toting around. Yeah a 20th level fighter with relatively mundane equipment might be merely a CR 15 threat but he's right back to around a CR 20 challenge once you finish decking him out with 760,000 gp worth of magic items.
Find me one and I'll let you buy me a beer to thank me for guiding you to a newfound understanding of the CR /EL relationship :-)
Best wishes along your quest to learning,
Rez
Sorry, Rez, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this, and your attitude of being the guru dispensing all the answers is both irritating and misplaced. I've got a math degree and published dozens of adventures with hundreds of encounters, so I'm familiar with all of the cites you're making. However, I maintain that you cannot work the math backwards, as elegant as it seems to you. There is some beautiful math to the design, I agree, but it isn't strictly logarithmic and it isn't bidirectional.
The designers speak about the party of 4 so often not to confuse the issue, but because it's a crucial element of the design. They also emphasize that the whole CR system is an art and not a science (and certainly not a mathematically balanced one: how can you be precise in a system where a halfling monk1/bard1 has the same CR--and thus purportedly identical combat effectiveness--as a fiendish grimlock barbarian1?)
You're in love with the EL math, and you put it to a lot of use; I can appreciate that. But you're putting it to uses for which the system was not designed.
I'm not sure I buy this once you include the magic these guys are toting around. Yeah a 20th level fighter with relatively mundane equipment might be merely a CR 15 threat but he's right back to around a CR 20 challenge once you finish decking him out with 760,000 gp worth of magic items.I actually know how CR and EL's work (contrary to what Frank says). I've written enough published adventures to know that. My contention is that a 7th-level NPC fighter is not as powerful as a CR 7 hill giant because that's how the game and the EL system has been designed. The designers never intended a 7th-level fighter to tackle a CR 7 threat by himself, but with the aid of a party of 3 other characters. This is true of not just the fighter, but of most of the standard classes. There are exceptions to this rule (both CR wise and class wise), but they are rare.
In the Book of Templates they actually showed the method for determining CR and in 80% - 90% of cases it works perfectly. Now if you apply these same rules to classed creatures you'll discover that a 7th-level fighter is actually only a CR 4 or CR 5 threat. The same goes with the other base classes. Should this be the case? Probably not, but the CR and EL system has been designed for groups not individuals.
Not only is this discrepancy at low-levels, but begins accumulating even more rapidly at higher levels. That's why most 20th-level fighters would be absolutely creamed if they fought a pit fiend by themselves. And if you think that's bad consider a fight between a 20th-level rogue and a pit fiend. In reality, both 20th-level characters are actually more like CR 15 or CR 16 threats.
Two things. There are PC fighters and NPC fighters. An NPC fighter would be about CR 15 or 16 (you actually have to include a CR modifier for magic items to even get to this CR). PC fighters are a different story, and receive a +3 or even +4 CR bonus given their sheer quantity of magic items (but only at high [15+] levels). They would still only get to about CR 18 or 19 (close but still off). There is only so much that magic items can do for you, unless every PC fighter is toting around a vorpal sword.
Incidentally, in the last few monster manuals by WotC (MM IV and MM V) the power level of monsters has escalated even further in relation to their CR. In other words, the designers are saying "there is no way that you can defeat these monsters on your own unless you are extremely lucky. This is a group system and you better fight these babies in a group!"
Also, this is why non-associated classes were introduced. Consider this, the difference between a 14th-level stone giant transmuter and a 14th-level human transmuter is a total CR increase of +1. The stone giant transmuter is CR 15 and the human transmuter is CR 14. Now a lot of people say that the stone giant probably should have a higher CR, but the truth is, its the human transmuter's CR that's probably too high and should be reduced to CR 9 - CR 11 (CR calculations being an imperfect science).
Two things. There are PC fighters and NPC fighters. An NPC fighter would be about CR 15 or 16 (you actually have to include a CR modifier for magic items to even get to this CR). PC fighters are a different story, and receive a +3 or even +4 CR bonus given their sheer quantity of magic items (but only at high [15+] levels). They would still only get to about CR 18 or 19 (close but still off). There is only so much that magic items can do for you, unless every PC fighter is toting around a vorpal sword.
The NPC fighter gets an advantage in that you can cherry pick the magic items to deal with the specific circumstances in which he is encountered. Since usually the NPC is only going to be onstage for this one encounter its possible to make a lot more use of one shot magic items or to really much more heavily on items that are of the once per day type variety. Otherwise my feeling is that your underestimating the kind of power that large amounts of magic items bring into play but possibly we will simply have to agree to disagree here.
Incidentally, in the last few monster manuals by WotC (MM IV and MM V) the power level of monsters has escalated even further in relation to their CR. In other words, the designers are saying "there is no way that you can defeat these monsters on your own unless you are extremely lucky. This is a group system and you better fight these babies in a group!"Also, this is why non-associated classes were introduced. Consider this, the difference between a 14th-level stone giant transmuter and a 14th-level human transmuter is a total CR increase of +1. The stone giant transmuter is CR 15 and the human transmuter is CR 14. Now a lot of people say that the stone giant probably should have a higher CR, but the truth is, its the human transmuter's CR that's probably too high and should be reduced to CR 9 - CR 11 (CR calculations being an imperfect science).
At this point I'm getting the impression that your trying to move the argument from one about whether the math for the CR/EL system works to one about whether or not the CR balance for the game is actually accurate.
No one is arguing that one can make encounters that are unbalanced for their EL. Its downright easy to do if you put your mind to it. Thats neither here nor there when it comes to the math of the CR/EL system itself.
Four characters is in fact not really what we are talking about when we consider the party of four in any case. What we are really talking about is four characters, one of which is a fighter, one of which is a rogue, one of which is a cleric and one of which is a mage. Four rogues is going to be weak for their level (and therefore weak for their CR) against undead. Four Clerics, on the other hand, is going to be unusually powerful. So a party of four characters each of which covers a different theme does not really change their CR so much as smooth out imbalances. They trade more power under certain circumstances as a hedge against less power under other circumstances. This does not really change their average CR it simply smooths out some of the peaks and dips. Note also that four really does not cover all the themes that a party would like to have. If the fighter is a range specialist then this party still faces significant issues if the opposition includes burly melee types if the fighter is not a range specialist then the party faces increased challenges from opposition they can't easily reach. In other words eight characters, each of which covers a different them is better then four at smoothing out the the peaks and dips...which pretty much brings me back to its all about the math and scaling things up and down.
I agree with you. The maths actually does work most of the time when we are talking about monsters. With NPCs it's a completely different story however (particularly at high-levels). Most don't stand a candle to monster's of equal CR magic items notwithstanding. This is one of the reasons Paizo (and others) have been improving the character classes. It's not just to make PCs better, but to also make NPCs bigger threats. This is why so many classes are getting more abilities and (more importantly) more hit points. It's good for the goose as well as the gander.
I've thought about a lot of other examples, arguments, proofs and so forth (like where I prove that a Level 1 PC = CR 1.64385619) but ultimately I've decided that since my philosophy works for me and my group and my game and has borne itself out in every implementation of every scenario I've run then that's fine and it's really not worth arguing any more.
Really, what works for your group is most important, and I'm glad we're all able to enjoy the game. No hard feelings at all on my end, and I hope there are none from me.
Happy Easter, Rez and all!
|
|
Either way, I think Cato probably has the ideal solution.
Of course I do. I mean, I am such a genius, its scary!
P.S. I don't actually believe that a 1st Level PC = CR 1.64385619, but I can offer a mathematical "proof" that works save for a very subtle and easily overlooked logic flaw, aside from the fact that it sets up an inherent paradox in the Level = CR argument.
Is this paradox you speak of anything like that old math paradox with the guys staying in a hotel who order a pizza, leave the money with the bellhop, who takes some of it, pays for the pizza, and gives them the reduced change, which when added to the amount that the bellhop stole doesn't add up to the right total?
|
|
There are three issues here:
First, an EL +4 encounter does not mean it is evenly matched with the party with a 50% chance of either side winning. I am not sure where that comes from, but I do not find it in my DMG. What I do find is:
"Very Difficult: One PC might very well die. The Encounter Level
is higher than the party level. This sort of encounter may be more
dangerous than an overpowering one, because it’s not immediately
obvious to the players that the PCs should flee."
The thing is, that applies to encounters of EL +1 to EL +4, with no real distinction between them. Obviously there must be some, but it is not specified there.
Second, PCs are not a CR equal to their level. This has been mentioned, but I want to support it. As noted, a PC is generally CR = CL-2 instead. I take it that it is not a coincidence that this is what appears in the PFRPG Alpha rules.
Third, and the most critical, difficulty changes according to character level.
At low levels, an EL +4 encounter is lethal. In fact, an EL +3 encounter is generally lethal, and an EL +2 encounter is exceptionally difficult.
At middle levels, a PL +4 encounter id still very difficult, but a PL +2 encounter is only somewhat hard.
A high levels, an EL +2 encounter is often a joke. An EL +3 encounter is average, and an EL +4 encounter is difficult. Even EL +5 encounters are reasonably survivable at this point.
However, all of that also depends on the makeup of the encounter. At some levels and CRs, multiple creatures are more lethal. At others, single creatures are more lethal. A single ogre is ludicrously dangerous to 1st level characters. A pack of 9 goblins much less so. Likewise at higher levels, where a CR 18 mature adult red dragon is typically a lot more dangerous than a pack of four CR 14 nalfeshness to a 14th level party. Most critically, a single spellcaster is typically free xp, particularly in a restricted location (ie, a dungeon room).
So what is needed are modifiers for both groups, single monsters above the party level, and party level, as well as a better statement of the effect of terrain and circumstances.
There are three issues here:
First, an EL +4 encounter does not mean it is evenly matched with the party with a 50% chance of either side winning. I am not sure where that comes from, but I do not find it in my DMG. What I do find is:
"Very Difficult: One PC might very well die. The Encounter Level
is higher than the party level. This sort of encounter may be more
dangerous than an overpowering one, because it’s not immediately
obvious to the players that the PCs should flee."
The thing is, that applies to encounters of EL +1 to EL +4, with no real distinction between them. Obviously there must be some, but it is not specified there.
Its not specified in the DMG which is one of the reasons we get into these arguments. Its implied in the math however. If you meet a carbon copy of yourself its an EL+4 encounter.
Second, PCs are not a CR equal to their level. This has been mentioned, but I want to support it. As noted, a PC is generally CR = CL-2 instead. I take it that it is not a coincidence that this is what appears in the PFRPG Alpha rules.
I disagree. It seems to me that this simply can't be so. If it were so then we must come to the obvious conclusion that 1/2 the time when the PCs face an EL+2 encounter they loose the fight and either die or run away. Are you seriously telling me that when you face your PCs with an EL+2 encounter half the time you kick your players asses?
'Cause I use EL+2 as pretty much the baseline encounter with my PCs and they get their butts handed to them only very rarely and when they do usually I can pinpoint exactly what went wrong for them. In fact even when I do kill one of them I usually still actually loose the fight. Often the last of my monsters goes down shortly after this event. I can think of only a very small handful of encounters where my players actually lost and the enemy was holding the battlefield when the encounter came to a close. In most of these cases the encounter was significantly higher then EL+2.
Even beyond this if we look at the PCs meeting carbon copies of themselves an EL+2 encounter is basically a standard party of 4 bumps into a carbon copy of their fighter and their mage. The party of 4 should win they also have a cleric and a rogue to help out.
|
|
Its not specified in the DMG which is one of the reasons we get into these arguments. Its implied in the math however. If you meet a carbon copy of yourself its an EL+4 encounter.
Or it implies the math for CR/EL is wrong.
Consider:If you meet yourself, it an EL +4 encounter for you.
It is also an EL +4 encounter for your carbon copy.
So . . . both of you should use up virtually all of your resources, and probably die.
Will that happen?
Highly unlikely.
One of "you" will win initiative. One of you will strike first. And one of you will die before the other does his last round of damage. Especially as levels and damage goes up, "you" become less and less of a threat to "yourself".
Given that, you wind up with the only conclusion being there is something wrong with the system itself.
I disagree. It seems to me that this simply can't be so. If it were so then we must come to the obvious conclusion that 1/2 the time when the PCs face an EL+2 encounter they loose the fight and either die or run away. Are you seriously telling me that when you face your PCs with an EL+2 encounter half the time you kick your players asses?
See my third point.
The EL at which danger is significant changes as you increase the level.It also changes depending on whether you are fighting a single creature of a greater CR or if you are fighting a group.
Its not specified in the DMG which is one of the reasons we get into these arguments. Its implied in the math however. If you meet a carbon copy of yourself its an EL+4 encounter.Or it implies the math for CR/EL is wrong.
Consider:
If you meet yourself, it an EL +4 encounter for you.
It is also an EL +4 encounter for your carbon copy.
So . . . both of you should use up virtually all of your resources, and probably die.
Will that happen?
Highly unlikely.
One of "you" will win initiative. One of you will strike first. And one of you will die before the other does his last round of damage. Especially as levels and damage goes up, "you" become less and less of a threat to "yourself".
Given that, you wind up with the only conclusion being there is something wrong with the system itself.
The math is fine and the danger level is pretty accurate. However the descriptions in the DMG are often not particularly good. I'm thinking that they wrote those without really contemplating what takes place in a D&D combat encounter. As you note if you meet a carbon copy of yourself the fight is likely to be short and brutal. Fine I more or less agree with that. Thing is its generally the case with a great number of encounters.
I disagree. It seems to me that this simply can't be so. If it were so then we must come to the obvious conclusion that 1/2 the time when the PCs face an EL+2 encounter they loose the fight and either die or run away. Are you seriously telling me that when you face your PCs with an EL+2 encounter half the time you kick your players asses?
See my third point.
The EL at which danger is significant changes as you increase the level.
It also changes depending on whether you are fighting a single creature of a greater CR or if you are fighting a group.
I think your missing my point. If we say that CL=CR-2 with the basic theory underlining this is that PC CR=Monster CR then we arrive at the point where, if an encounter is EL+2, that the PCs CR is now the same as Monster CR. Therefore, on average, the PCs should loose 50% of the time.
Sure there are all sorts of factors that influence this but my point is that this is not even vaguely true. The PCs will almost always beat an EL+2 encounter. Hence its not possible that PC CR=CL-2 since the PCs do not loose often enough to justify that idea.
On the other hand if you move things so that the PCs are facing EL+4 encounters I think you'll find that the number of PC defeats does become quite significant. It won't be exactly 50% because, as you point out there are other factors influencing the situation beyond just the monsters CR such as what kind of other monsters its with. But it will be roughly accurate. At EL+4 your players are probably in a world of hurt. At EL+2 they will almost assuredly defeat the encounter.
|
Whether you can beat your own doubles, and how many resources you expend doing so, is also highly dependent on whether you come to the encounter refreshed, or with reduced hp and spells...and whether you feel you need to conserve something for later.
An NPC party on their home turf, who are designed to hold up the PCs, can blow their whole wad without a thought.
|
|
The way this discussion has turned reminds me a lot of a monster from the Book of Exalted Deeds, the Aleax. It was essentially a divine construct that is an exact duplicate of you in terms of mind and body, with a portion of the created deity's will infused within it, and a few extra bonuses.
First appearing in the First Edition Fiend Folio (1981).
One way to show up the broken PC builds; throw it right back at them!|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Howdy.
I'm re-animating this thread, because the Challenge Rating / Encounter Level discussion is still running as a side-track in several other threads, and it seemed easier to address the issue on a thread where it is precisely on-topic.
If you're looking for something revolutionary, this isn't it. I'm not going to say anything that everybody doesn't already know. (And, I suppose it needs to be said: I'm not interested in attacking anyone, present or no, any company, or any poliical party. I want to make a short, uncontroversial post.)
The DMG claims that CR is a property inheirent to a creature. An Ogre fresh from the Monster Manual has a well-defined Armor Class, a well-defined set of feats, and a well-defined CR.
Some people have argued, with a passion only the Internet can generate, for or against that point. (For example: is an Ogre CR 3 against only one character?)
The concern about CR is over-stated.
This is because we never face a challenge out of context; we face encounters. Lots of things affect Encounter Level: initial distance, underwater environment, how exhausted the party's spellcasters are, whether the PC's have a weapon that can bypass the attackers' DR, and so on.
Even the "neutral ground" of play-test encounters which start at 60', on a broad featureless plane, have made some decisions that affect the Encounter Level.
Challenge Rating is a good stat for creatures to have: it lets us talk about a vampire being tougher than a ghoul. But it's an invisible stat. It's used by adventure designers, not by DM's.
Since --I think everybody agrees-- party size does influence Encounter Level*, a lone monk against a CR 7 monster may not be having a EL 7 encounter, and we shouldn't run the fight pretending that it does.
When playtesting, pay atention to Encounter Levels, not CR.
*