Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rerednaw 09-12-07, 12:52 AM	Okay I've run into a particular critter a few times now. I am a bit puzzled by the CR calculation. By simply going from CR5 to CR6 the creature got: 3 barbarian levels. +10 strength. +10 constitution. +2 dex. Resist energy from 10 (acid/cold/electric/fire) to 20. From +11/+11/+6 to +19/+19/+17 to hit. Does this sound right?
paigeoliver 09-12-07, 01:41 AM	If you are abusing the CR system and ignoring other parts of it than yes, that does sound a bit right. Okay I've run into a particular critter a few times now. I am a bit puzzled by the CR calculation. By simply going from CR5 to CR6 the creature got: 3 barbarian levels. +10 strength. +10 constitution. +2 dex. Resist energy from 10 (acid/cold/electric/fire) to 20. From +11/+11/+6 to +19/+19/+17 to hit. Does this sound right?
_metz_ 09-12-07, 04:14 AM	Okay I've run into a particular critter a few times now. I am a bit puzzled by the CR calculation. By simply going from CR5 to CR6 the creature got: 3 barbarian levels. +10 strength. +10 constitution. +2 dex. Resist energy from 10 (acid/cold/electric/fire) to 20. From +11/+11/+6 to +19/+19/+17 to hit. Does this sound right? We need more information. (i.e: what it is)
Madfox11 09-12-07, 04:51 AM	Actually, fighting classes only count as non-associated for very few monsters, and even than I am careful to see whether it sounds reasonable. How did you get at the the stat boosts though? If it is a monster with HD, they should get the elite array (which at the most gives a +5 to one attribute) and perhaps +1 boost to one for the 4 HD rule. If you refer to items, you get into a discussion I recently had with an author: Do you give NPC EV equal to HD? CR? or just the class levels? The rules are somewhat conflicting on that regard. In any event, if it looks rediculous, play test it thoroughly (somethings things look bad on paper, but are not in practice), use another monster or start looking for stuff to off-set the CR advantage. While a lot of people think about how to abuse the CR system by getting as low a number as possible with as strong as possible monster, you can do it the other way around.
Rerednaw 09-12-07, 10:22 AM	Thanks all for the input. Unfortunately we are past the playtesting stage. These are from current published mods. I am going to be running these modules and could not figure out how they ended up this way. I'll be e-mailing the module authors for an explanation. I am extremely concerned about the latter creature showing up at APL4.
copper_wyrmling 09-12-07, 08:50 PM	If you refer to items, you get into a discussion I recently had with an author: Do you give NPC EV equal to HD? CR? or just the class levels? The rules are somewhat conflicting on that regard. I had this discussion with someone recently, and found this quote in the MM (p.291): "If you choose to equip a monster with gear, use its ECL as its character level for purposes of determining how much equipment it can purchase. Generally, only monsters with an Advancement entry of "By character class" receive NPC gear; other creatures adding character levels should be treated as monsters of the appropriate CR and assigned treasure, not equipment." Are there other relevant references? I'd be interested to know.
Madfox11 09-13-07, 03:51 AM	The ECL quote is actually the one that I strongly disagree with. For example, a standard hill giant is armed with a great club, a couple of rocks and a hide armor and carries some random assorted treasure. Give it one class level and suddenly it gets the EV of a 17th level NPC and that for a CR 8 creature :confused: Nah, I prefer to stick giving a critter standard equipment plus what ever EV there actually classes give them.
mlund 09-13-07, 03:26 PM	OK, I see how that works out now. Suddenly you've got a bunch of equipment, and +4 STR and +4 CON due to raging. Throw on a couple of +6 Stat-bump items and on you go. Of course, monsters should not have that sort of NPC gear added to them in Living Greyhawk modules unless the value of those items is factored into the Treasure determinations for the module. If the result is grossly inappropriate over-cap gold, the module writer should reconsider what value of equipment he is handing his monsters at that APL. - Marty Lund
JamesMaissen 09-13-07, 05:14 PM	The ECL quote is actually the one that I strongly disagree with. While not official.. going by CR seems the most balanced way of handling things. -James
Istaran 09-13-07, 05:46 PM	The ECL quote is actually the one that I strongly disagree with. For example, a standard hill giant is armed with a great club, a couple of rocks and a hide armor and carries some random assorted treasure. Give it one class level and suddenly it gets the EV of a 17th level NPC and that for a CR 8 creature :confused: Nah, I prefer to stick giving a critter standard equipment plus what ever EV there actually classes give them. A Warrior 16 would have the EV of a 16th level NPC and a CR of 8. Not that much different..
copper_wyrmling 09-13-07, 08:25 PM	A Warrior 16 would have the EV of a 16th level NPC and a CR of 8. Not that much different.. Er, no, not quite. NPC classes contribute a CR of class level -1 (assuming no nonassociated-class issues), so a properly equipped Warrior 16 is CR 15 (DMG p.38).
Madfox11 09-14-07, 04:23 AM	Of course, monsters should not have that sort of NPC gear added to them in Living Greyhawk modules unless the value of those items is factored into the Treasure determinations for the module. If the result is grossly inappropriate over-cap gold, the module writer should reconsider what value of equipment he is handing his monsters at that APL. Over the cap gold is a different kind of concern, which in my book is less important than EL balance. Er, no, not quite. NPC classes contribute a CR of class level -1 (assuming no nonassociated-class issues), so a properly equipped Warrior 16 is CR 15 (DMG p.38). You know, I recently had to point this fact out to an author as well. It seems that some people read the non-associated part about NPC classes and apply them even when those rules do not (class levels higher then racial HD) ;) (To be honest though, I have never seen an author in my meta-region use more then 5 NPC class levels. Warriors and adepts tend to change into fighters and clerics at higher APLs ;) )
JohnduBois 09-14-07, 09:23 AM	OK, I see how that works out now. Suddenly you've got a bunch of equipment, and +4 STR and +4 CON due to raging. Throw on a couple of +6 Stat-bump items and on you go. Of course, monsters should not have that sort of NPC gear added to them in Living Greyhawk modules unless the value of those items is factored into the Treasure determinations for the module. If the result is grossly inappropriate over-cap gold, the module writer should reconsider what value of equipment he is handing his monsters at that APL. - Marty Lund Actually, it depends largely on what monsters you're using. After about APL 6, it's nearly impossible to put in normal human class X NPCs into combats with level-appropriate gear (using the chart for NPC gear value in the DMG) without absolutely destroying the gold cap. This is because the gear value starts getting more and more disproportionate at high APLs (one of the big things that 4e has promised to fix, and I'll believe when I see).
solbergb 09-14-07, 01:40 PM	4E can fix the cash problem easily by not requiring attribute boosters and resistance boosters and part of the CR but instead make those things more like class abilities or BAB/saves. eg, all fighters get +2 enhancement to their strength and con every 5 levels, +1 enhancement bonus to all weapons/shields/armor they use every 4 levels and all characters get a +1 resistance bonus to saves every 3 levels etc. Other classes would get other things that they typicallyspend money on. All enhancment or resistance bonuses (not "unnamed" inherent like statbumps and wishes) so we can still have spells or effects used at lower levels to briefly enhance characters. A lot of the cash inflation is to ensure that all chars have those basic items expected for their CR. If people only had to buy "flavor" magic items and consumables, the equipment costs and expected cash would come way, way down.
Istaran 09-14-07, 10:43 PM	Er, no, not quite. NPC classes contribute a CR of class level -1 (assuming no nonassociated-class issues), so a properly equipped Warrior 16 is CR 15 (DMG p.38). However, warrior is an NPC class which is by definition always nonassociated. Nonassociated Class Levels If you add a class level that doesn’t directly play to a creature’s strength the class level is considered nonassociated, and things get a little more complicated. Adding a nonassociated class level to a monster increases its CR by ½ per level until one of its nonassociated class levels equals its original Hit Dice. At that point, each additional level of the same class or a similar one is considered associated and increases the monster’s CR by 1. Levels in NPC classes are always treated as nonassociated. You know, I recently had to point this fact out to an author as well. It seems that some people read the non-associated part about NPC classes and apply them even when those rules do not (class levels higher then racial HD) (To be honest though, I have never seen an author in my meta-region use more then 5 NPC class levels. Warriors and adepts tend to change into fighters and clerics at higher APLs ) Look again. NPC classes are always treated as nonassociated. This overrides the rule about classes becoming associated when they exceed the racial HD. Need proof? Check out the entries for Halfling Warrior 1 (CR 1/2, not CR 1), Elf Warrior 1 (CR 1/2, not CR 1), Orc Warrior 1 (CR 1/2, not CR 1) etc. Clearly with 1 NPC level and 0 racial HD, these creatures have more NPC class levels than racial HD. The class levels vs racial HD comparison is only revelant with nonassociated PC classes, i.e. if an Ogre had a level of sorcerer or something like that. The Ogre Sorcerer 2 is not advantaged as much as an Ogre Barbarian 2 or Ogre Fighter 2 and the rules reflect that. However, adding that 16th level of sorcerer to the Ogre is every bit as dangerous as adding the 16th level of Barbarian or Fighter. By that time, sorcerery has become the creature's strong point, even if it wasn't at the beginning.
JohnduBois 09-15-07, 01:02 PM	However, warrior is an NPC class which is by definition always nonassociated. Look again. NPC classes are always treated as nonassociated. This overrides the rule about classes becoming associated when they exceed the racial HD. Need proof? Check out the entries for Halfling Warrior 1 (CR 1/2, not CR 1), Elf Warrior 1 (CR 1/2, not CR 1), Orc Warrior 1 (CR 1/2, not CR 1) etc. Clearly with 1 NPC level and 0 racial HD, these creatures have more NPC class levels than racial HD. The class levels vs racial HD comparison is only revelant with nonassociated PC classes, i.e. if an Ogre had a level of sorcerer or something like that. The Ogre Sorcerer 2 is not advantaged as much as an Ogre Barbarian 2 or Ogre Fighter 2 and the rules reflect that. However, adding that 16th level of sorcerer to the Ogre is every bit as dangerous as adding the 16th level of Barbarian or Fighter. By that time, sorcerery has become the creature's strong point, even if it wasn't at the beginning. In the Nonassociated Class Levels section, it is unclear exactly what the final sentence is trying to say. Is it that NPC class levels are always treated as nonassociated for the purpose of the first paragraph (e.g. that it increases the CR by 1/2 a level until it equals the original hit dice), or that they are always treated as nonassociated (regardless of how many levels there are compared to Hit Dice)? The CR 1/2 warriors of 0 HD creatures is a weird situation, possibly indicative of the "Estimating CR" rule more than anything else. The way I look at things is based more on the higher levels (since that's where my authors are more likely to try stupid things). Is a orc warrior 20 the same challenge as an orc fighter 10? If the nonassociated classes are always +1/2 regardless of Hit Dice, these are both CR 10 creatures...
copper_wyrmling 09-15-07, 01:44 PM	In the Nonassociated Class Levels section, it is unclear exactly what the final sentence is trying to say. Is it that NPC class levels are always treated as nonassociated for the purpose of the first paragraph (e.g. that it increases the CR by 1/2 a level until it equals the original hit dice), or that they are always treated as nonassociated (regardless of how many levels there are compared to Hit Dice)? The CR 1/2 warriors of 0 HD creatures is a weird situation, possibly indicative of the "Estimating CR" rule more than anything else. The way I look at things is based more on the higher levels (since that's where my authors are more likely to try stupid things). Is a orc warrior 20 the same challenge as an orc fighter 10? If the nonassociated classes are always +1/2 regardless of Hit Dice, these are both CR 10 creatures... Given that the DMG (p.38) tells us that a human (or half-orc) warrior 20 is CR 19, I think the correct way to do it is pretty obvious, and the CR 1/2 warriors are a special case.
JohnduBois 09-15-07, 01:52 PM	Given that the DMG (p.38) tells us that a human (or half-orc) warrior 20 is CR 19, I think the correct way to do it is pretty obvious, and the CR 1/2 warriors are a special case. THANK YOU. I have been looking for this reference for the better part of a year!
solbergb 09-17-07, 12:50 PM	Note that even two nonassociated warrior levels per CR is inferior to advancing the critter by hit dice. So without the bonus feats from fighter, that assessment is probably correct. It's less clear with adept. Remember that even nonassociated levels become 1 for 1 after you exceed monster hit dice.
Timlagor 09-18-07, 02:25 AM	Note that even two nonassociated warrior levels per CR is inferior to advancing the critter by hit dice. So without the bonus feats from fighter, that assessment is probably correct. It's less clear with adept. Remember that even nonassociated levels become 1 for 1 after you exceed monster hit dice. And it's very clear that they should become 1:1 once you reach the base CR ..that's not what the rules say but if you're actually interested in balance you should examine anythign with more non-associated levels than CR very carefully indeed.
JamesMaissen 09-18-07, 02:39 AM	And it's very clear that they should become 1:1 once you reach the base CR ..that's not what the rules say but if you're actually interested in balance you should examine anythign with more non-associated levels than CR very carefully indeed. That's more part of a general problem with tying things to HD rather than CR. Turn undead is another place where CR would make more sense. Likewise knowledge checks for information on creatures. Basically at the end of the day look at what it is and ask yourself if the encounter is fair. If you have to work at it then likely you're going over the top. -James
Madfox11 09-18-07, 02:59 AM	Turn undead is not working particular well as a game mechanic regardless of what you tie it to. It is too much an all or nothing effect with no save for the opposition.
jhorred 09-18-07, 12:19 PM	Turn undead is not working particular well as a game mechanic regardless of what you tie it to. It is too much an all or nothing effect with no save for the opposition. I agree, I would like to see the cleric being able to effect the undead even on a 'failed turn'. I'm not sure if I'd argue for a save but, keeping with many other effects, it makes sense that they should get one. I think there should be at least 3 levels of effect, none, partial, full. Partial effect could be along the lines of a 'fatigue', 'Bane' or maybe even an 'entagled' effect on the undead, something to reduce their effectiveness or make them easier to destroy.
JamesMaissen 09-18-07, 01:51 PM	Turn undead is not working particular well as a game mechanic regardless of what you tie it to. It is too much an all or nothing effect with no save for the opposition. I don't mind all or nothing effects. The game has them in many forms, and it also has knock down/ drag down in many forms. A variety of both is reasonable. Not all fights need to last a long time. -James
Istaran 09-18-07, 03:42 PM	Does anyone think 1 level of warrior should increase CR by 1 on say a monstrous humanoid? Options a: Add one level of warrior. Gain +1 BAB, +1 ECL (for gear), +1/2 fort save, +1/3 ref/will save, +1d10 HD, 2+int skill points (min 1), +1 feat / 3 levels. +1 CR? or +1/2 CR? Option b: Add 3 HD of monstrous humanoid. Gain +3 BAB, +3 ECL (for gear), +1 fort save, +1.5 ref/will save, +3d8 HD, 6 + 3 x int skill points (min 3), +1 feat. Undeniably +1 CR. Why in the universe would a level of warrior ever be worth more than any racial HD when many racial HD out perform it? 4 HD of humanoid is in all ways better than 1 level of warrior (or even 2 for that matter). Is a warrior level worth twice as much as a dragon HD? How?!? Remember that even nonassociated levels become 1 for 1 after you exceed monster hit dice. Except the rules don't say that. They say a nonassociated class becomes an associated class after it exceeds monster hit dice. And then afterward claims that NPC classes are always nonassociated. Where that leaves any room to argue is whether nonassociated classes become associated except when they are NPC classes or whether NPC classes are always nonassociated except when they exceed racial HD. Clearly in the case of NPC classes that exceed racial HD, one or the other rules has to take precedence. At that point, each additional level of the same class or a similar one is considered associated and increases the monster’s CR by 1. Levels in NPC classes are always treated as nonassociated. Those two sentences are included back to back, with nothing but a paragraph break in between. My personal reading comprehension skills tell me that the second one is meant to override the first. That's what it looks like to me. The way the latter sentance is it's own paragraph seems to further emphasize that they really do mean an NPC class is always treated as nonassociated, not just mostly always except for those times when it isn't. If they had put the part about NPC classes within the main paragraph, before the rule about nonassociated classes becoming associated and left off the word "always" then I would absolutely agree with you (but wonder why anyone would use NPC classes even for NPCs; they would only make sense if you are trying to cripple the NPCs so the PCs can have an easier time). I agree, I would like to see the cleric being able to effect the undead even on a 'failed turn'. I'm not sure if I'd argue for a save but, keeping with many other effects, it makes sense that they should get one. I think there should be at least 3 levels of effect, none, partial, full. Partial effect could be along the lines of a 'fatigue', 'Bane' or maybe even an 'entagled' effect on the undead, something to reduce their effectiveness or make them easier to destroy. Turning technically does have 3 levels of effect. Nothing, turn/rebuke, destroy/command. It's just that the turn/rebuke level is already so powerful that it pretty much defeats the undead in question so for undead to be of any challenge there either have to be so many that a typical cleric runs out of turn/rebuke attempts or they have to be somewhat unlikely to be turned/rebuked. Maybe a fourth level below turn/rebuke where a cleric of appropriate level almost always succeeds but the effect is minor would be an improvement. It would make turn useful for non-optimized clerics even in a campaign where the authors build the encounters to challenge optimized turners.
jhorred 09-18-07, 04:46 PM	<snip> Turning technically does have 3 levels of effect. Nothing, turn/rebuke, destroy/command. It's just that the turn/rebuke level is already so powerful that it pretty much defeats the undead in question so for undead to be of any challenge there either have to be so many that a typical cleric runs out of turn/rebuke attempts or they have to be somewhat unlikely to be turned/rebuked. Maybe a fourth level below turn/rebuke where a cleric of appropriate level almost always succeeds but the effect is minor would be an improvement. It would make turn useful for non-optimized clerics even in a campaign where the authors build the encounters to challenge optimized turners. True, but both of the 'Turn' and 'Destroy' results have a all or nothing type feel to them. Even the 'Turn' result can pretty much be a combat ender.
JamesMaissen 09-19-07, 01:42 AM	True, but both of the 'Turn' and 'Destroy' results have a all or nothing type feel to them. Even the 'Turn' result can pretty much be a combat ender. I don't know I seem to recall a battle interactive where my cleric was chided for not being able to turn. The next table's cleric was able to turn the first wave. They returned with the second wave. My table liked the 'dwarven' version of turning better after that... -James
Madfox11 09-19-07, 04:19 AM	As other have said there is no difference between turning and destroying except under specific circumstances such as give by James or when dealing with incorporeal undead (although even than turning is better if you are going to turn only part of the opposition). Unlike all other all-or-nothing effects is that it is likely to affect all opponents or none, that there is no saving throw and for it to be successful a cleric needs to specialize in it (at which point it tends to overshadow all other characters). It would have been better if it simply would have dealt damage.
solbergb 09-19-07, 01:06 PM	The turn behavior in 3.x was grandfathered from 1.0 (basic set just had turning, no destroying). They converted a table into a formula. 4th ed may or may not keep the grandfathering.
Samwise 09-19-07, 08:12 PM	The turn behavior in 3.x was grandfathered from 1.0 (basic set just had turning, no destroying). They converted a table into a formula. 4th ed may or may not keep the grandfathering. The Basic set did not have destroying because it only covered levels 1-3. The Expert set and above had destroying undead, as did the Rules Cyclopedia. AD&D had destroying undead as well as turning.
solbergb 09-20-07, 02:08 PM	Yeah, that's my point. The current "nothing or turn or destroy" mechanic is a formulization of tables from earlier editions. I think a "nothing or damage or destroy" mechanic would be better for the game, but it might not pass the "does it still feel like D&D" thing to purists.
HassanSabbah 09-20-07, 02:52 PM	OK, I see how that works out now. Suddenly you've got a bunch of equipment, and +4 STR and +4 CON due to raging. Throw on a couple of +6 Stat-bump items and on you go. - Marty Lund Perhaps a size increase was included somewhere or other... Baris
Rerednaw 09-20-07, 05:19 PM	Perhaps a size increase was included somewhere or other... Baris That was my thought...except a size increase would normally mean either +2 (Enlarge spell, won't work because type is not humanoid) or +8 (size advancement). Not to mention the creatures dex INCREASED with the size change. I suppose it is possible that because the previous example was from a module that came out right BEFORE the book Drow of the Underdark, this is simply an example of power creep. Take basic monster...add a few months and stir...presto! Bigger, better, and you can have it for the low low price of +1 CR! :) I'll just run him as is...the players can appeal the TPK :)