CR and EL demystified?

[danzibr]

Some of you are likely thinking there is no confusion with CR and EL, but I thought there was. In fact, when I DM'ed I pretty much just avoided it, instead only assigning experience to battles and timing it so that we gained a level every two sessions, and every session consisted of two combats with some weak plot thrown in between. Ahh, but now I'm learning of DMing.

So for you veteran DM's, would you say if I have this right?

1) CR is assigned to traps and monsters.

2) A monster's* CR is based solely on their racial HD (if any), class levels (if any), and LA** (if any).

3) Experience from completing a challenge (setting off a trap, disabling it, getting by it; killing a monster, subduing it, sneaking by it, otherwise handling it) is based on the CR and the player's level. This is all done individually, though you divide by the number of players.

4) If you overcome several challenges at once (kill a bunch of dudes, set off a bunch of traps and kill a dudes, et cetera), you just add up the experience from each one.

5) EL is just a number assigned to an... encounter. Maybe one monster, several monsters, one trap, several traps, several traps and monsters. This number depends almost entirely on the CR of the traps and monsters involved, but can be influenced by advantages and disadvantages. In any case, it's simply a number used to help give an idea to the DM of what the party should be able to handle (though this will wildly vary based on the party).

6) The mysterious thing to me is that gold is awarded based on EL while experience is awarded based on CR. At least as far as I can tell by the DMG.

*I'm using the word "monster" loosely here.

**I understand that not everything has a level adjustment. By LA I mean... their stat adjustments, racial abilities and whatnot.

So please playgrounders, help me understand if I'm wrong. Thanks!

[Shadowknight12]

1) True.

2) False. That's ECL (Effective Character Level). A monster's CR is arbitrary and subjective. There are a few guidelines made by fans to recalculate CR for monsters that are just way off the mark, but they remain that, fan guidelines. I recommend tweaking CR according to your party. If you have an unoptimised party of people who are not very bright strategists, you might want to up the CR of things that have spells, spell-like abilities and things that can really wreck the party. Conversely, if you have a very capable party of optimised Tier 1s, feel free to drop down the CR of practically everything you throw at them, because it'll be a cakewalk. Ultimately, CR is a measure of how many resources a given encounter makes the party spend (resources in this case are defined by consumable items, HP, spells, daily-use abilities and so on). If a monster of a given CR is not making the party spend the percentage of resources it should (and there's a table in the DMG that shows you how much a given encounter should cost the party), then adjust its CR accordingly.

3) Mostly True. Experience rewarded for overcoming an encounter is dependant on CR and the party's overall level, and then divided by the number of players. I recommend you use this (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/) until you get the hang of it.

4) Partly True. You can combine encounters to increase their EL instead of adding everything together separately. There's a table in the DMG that helps you calculate the EL of, say, combining sixteen orc warriors and a manticore.

5) True. Keep in mind that you can also apply EL to things that do not involve monsters or traps, like a roleplaying scene or a series of skill-checks. It's a measure of how much XP you should reward your players for successfully completing the encounter.

6) Holdover from previous editions. You should unify it as it's more comfortable to you. If it's better for you to calculate XP and gold separately, do so. If you prefer to calculate both based on CR or EL, feel free. There really isn't a difference, since the XP you get by manually adding up the XP from each individual creature or trap in an encounter is the same as calculating XP from the EL (provided you calculated EL properly).

[Urpriest]

This is one of the things I cover pretty well in my Monster Handbook. Anyway,

1) Correct.

2) Yeah, you're mixing it up with ECL. CR is determined by base CR and CR adjustments.

3) Yes, but as mentioned it's determined by party level, not individual level.

4) Yes

5) Yes

6) Gold is based on EL largely because it allows you to give significant magic items as part of your treasure rather than having it divided in little bits between monsters. It's sort of a weird system though, yes.

[JadePhoenix]

Hm... it is individual level, not party level. That's even how the encounter calculator works. :smallconfused:

[Urpriest]

Hm... it is individual level, not party level. That's even how the encounter calculator works. :smallconfused:

You're right, my mistake. Quite a few little things changed between 3.0 and 3.5, made me somewhat uncertain what the state of that particular rule was.

[danzibr]

Hm... it is individual level, not party level. That's even how the encounter calculator works. :smallconfused:
Phew, I was worried. When I read the DMG it gave an example supporting the individual level.

In any case, I think I made my #2 not clear. I know what ECL is. I mean to say that CR is the monster's version of ECL. As far as I can tell, if you have something that would actually be playable by someone, then CR=ECL. If not, like a golem or something else not suitable to play, then you have to look at the individual monster.

[Urpriest]

In any case, I think I made my #2 not clear. I know what ECL is. I mean to say that CR is the monster's version of ECL. As far as I can tell, if you have something that would actually be playable by someone, then CR=ECL. If not, like a golem or something else not suitable to play, then you have to look at the individual monster.

This is essentially never true, except in Pathfinder. But I think you just misphrased what you were trying to say.

[RebelRogue]

In any case, I think I made my #2 not clear. I know what ECL is. I mean to say that CR is the monster's version of ECL. As far as I can tell, if you have something that would actually be playable by someone, then CR=ECL. If not, like a golem or something else not suitable to play, then you have to look at the individual monster.
The difference between ECL and CR is, that because some abilities on a PC would have way greater effect on the campaign compared to when en monster/opponent has them. A typical (non-recurring) enemy is in the game for max 10 rounds. A PC has these abilities all the time. This is especially problematic for powerful at-will abilities; these tend to be the worst offenders, LA-wise.

[BlueEyes]

Why didn't they simply rule that monsters have abilities at will, but a PC monster gets only X/day?
Even when most monsters aren't supposed to be there more then for an encounter they still can abuse their abilities just like any PC. :smallconfused:

[Duke of URL]

In any case, I think I made my #2 not clear. I know what ECL is. I mean to say that CR is the monster's version of ECL. As far as I can tell, if you have something that would actually be playable by someone, then CR=ECL. If not, like a golem or something else not suitable to play, then you have to look at the individual monster.

No, no, no. CR has absolutely nothing to do with ECL, other than both tend to increase with each other in an extremely general trend.

CR is (supposedly) a measure of what the party level for a party of 4 should be for the opponent to make the party spend 1/4 of its daily abilities. That in no way equates to how that same opponent would or would not function as a PC.

That is, a CR 6 encounter should make a standard party of 4 6th-level PCs use 1/4 of their spells/day, uses/day, etc. That doesn't mean that same creature is the equivalent of a 6th-level character; it's ECL is often significantly higher than its CR.


Why didn't they simply rule that monsters have abilities at will, but a PC monster gets only X/day?
Even when most monsters aren't supposed to be there more then for an encounter they still can abuse their abilities just like any PC. :smallconfused:

Because in the 3.x system, monsters use the same rules as characters by intent. if you start making exceptions, then you're working against the system design ethic. 4e, I believe, does not abide by the concept of making monsters and characters function from the same set of character creation rules.

[Oscredwin]

Why didn't they simply rule that monsters have abilities at will, but a PC monster gets only X/day?
Even when most monsters aren't supposed to be there more then for an encounter they still can abuse their abilities just like any PC. :smallconfused:

Because giving a monster an ability 3/day, at will, or 3/year are basically the same if the monster is just an encounter. The differences are just for flavor. Also, as has been stated, there was a design goal in 3.x to have everyone follow the same rules.

[BlueEyes]

Because giving a monster an ability 3/day, at will, or 3/year are basically the same if the monster is just an encounter.
But it's not the same if the monster is taken by a player as his race.
I said that at-will abilities should get nerfed down to X/day if the monster is used as a PC. I also said that a monster can abuse his at-will abilities just as easily as a PC.
That design goal was stupid, BTW.

[danzibr]

Ahh, well, I feel smarter now. Granted that makes me feel stupid before, but that's okay.

The table on page 38 of the DMG is throwing me off then. A Dwarf Warrior of level 10 has a CR of 9 because Warrior levels aren't as good as Fighter levels. A Dwarf Fighter of level 10 has a CR of 10. Then they go on to give a few more examples.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more confused I get. With the exception of NPC classes, that table really does seem to indicate that tacking on character levels, each of which gives +1 to ECL, also gives +1 to CR.

[Doug Lampert]

The difference between ECL and CR is, that because some abilities on a PC would have way greater effect on the campaign compared to when en monster/opponent has them. A typical (non-recurring) enemy is in the game for max 10 rounds. A PC has these abilities all the time. This is especially problematic for powerful at-will abilities; these tend to be the worst offenders, LA-wise.

That's what they tell you in the rules.

It is false. If that were true then abilities worth more in a short encounter than over a day or more would give ECL < CR, there isn't a single such monster in the rules.

There are a handful of abilities worth noticably more to a PC, notably regeneration which makes a PC nearly unkillable as many monsters can't do real damage to him at all.

But the much higher ECL than CR is based on the creature having GEAR! Most monsters have natural armor comparable to their CR, that's because they don't get gear, add gear and their AC is absurd. Monsters have an attack bonus appropriate to their CR, add a +5 weapon and guess what, monsters have HP appropriate to their CR, add a con booster and guess what.

It goes on, a monster that's a reasonable threat without gear typically gets much much more dangerous with gear. And then there's the fact that a PC gets elite abilities (+1 CR right there) and can pick good feats rather than the crap even for core feats in the monster manual.


Why didn't they simply rule that monsters have abilities at will, but a PC monster gets only X/day?
Even when most monsters aren't supposed to be there more then for an encounter they still can abuse their abilities just like any PC. :smallconfused:

Because the abilities in most cases aren't what matters. If they were then monsters with 1/week or 1/day abilities would have an ECL lower than CR, they don't.

But try building a PC succubus or something similar with gear appropriate to whatever you think her ECL should be and better feat choices and elite abilities. Notice that she's VASTLY more dangerous than the book succubus.

Ability focus and charisma boosts for elite give her +4 to save DCs, putting her second best ability in con gives her 12 or so extra HP, then she adds gear and gets +5 or more to AC while still having all her other abilities work as normal and likely either boosting her saves or further boosting her DCs.


Because giving a monster an ability 3/day, at will, or 3/year are basically the same if the monster is just an encounter. The differences are just for flavor. Also, as has been stated, there was a design goal in 3.x to have everyone follow the same rules.

A goal which they fail at. Epic PCs are different from epic monsters (eligability for epic feats for a PC is based on ECL, monsters don't even have ECL and use HD instead).

[Duke of URL]

In fact, the more I think about it, the more confused I get. With the exception of NPC classes, that table really does seem to indicate that tacking on character levels, each of which gives +1 to ECL, also gives +1 to CR.

First and foremost, remember that the CR system is borked.

As for class levels, "associated" class levels (ones that play to the base creature's strength) add +1 CR per level; "non-associated" class levels add +1 CR per two levels, until the class levels overtake hit dice, then +1 CR per level thereafter.

[Urpriest]

Why didn't they simply rule that monsters have abilities at will, but a PC monster gets only X/day?
Even when most monsters aren't supposed to be there more then for an encounter they still can abuse their abilities just like any PC. :smallconfused:

It's a little tricky to be Undead only X/day, or to be Incorporeal only X/day. What are you the rest of the time?

[Urpriest]

discussion of gear, optimization

All of that is only worth +1 CR if you go by the rules, since that's what it takes to get an NPC class level. At most there's a gear discrepancy, but it's not vast enough to account for the rest of LA.

The reason that ECL and CR diverge is because the ability to navigate a campaign world as part of a team has nothing to do with the ability to take up 25% of a team's daily resources. There simply is no logical connection between the two.

[BlueEyes]

It's a little tricky to be Undead only X/day, or to be Incorporeal only X/day. What are you the rest of the time?
You do realize I was talking about abilities at-will and not traits, right? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[JadePhoenix]

That design goal was stupid, BTW.

Saying stuff you don't like is 'stupid' is hardly going to win you any friends. :smallwink:

[Duke of URL]

Saying stuff you don't like is 'stupid' is hardly going to win you any friends. :smallwink:

That's stupid.

(Just kidding, of course! :smallcool:)

[BlueEyes]

Saying stuff you don't like is 'stupid' is hardly going to win you any friends. :smallwink:
I'm not looking for friends.

[Shadowknight12]

I'm not looking for friends.

It's a euphemism. It means "don't be nasty."

Now you know. And knowing is half the battle!

[Urpriest]

You do realize I was talking about abilities at-will and not traits, right? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

The point is, your solution is a rather limited patch. While specifically "at-will" abilities indeed could be limited, there are lot of things that can't be. Your solution would be heterogeneous, in short.

[Starbuck_II]

It's a little tricky to be Undead only X/day, or to be Incorporeal only X/day. What are you the rest of the time?

Actually, being incorporeal X/day is possible.
Class alone:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/psionUncarnate.htm
"Starting at 2nd level, a psion uncarnate can become incorporeal (or “uncarnate”) once per day as a standard action. The character can remain uncarnate for up to 1 minute.

At 10th level, a psion uncarnate becomes a being of pure psionic consciousness. This ability is similar to shed body, except the character is permanently incorporeal (and gains that subtype). If the character desires, he can become corporeal once per day for up to 1 minute, but he spends the rest of his time as an entity of mind untethered by the physical world.
"

Now, a Undead X/day race/class is feasible, but hasn't made yet.

[BlueEyes]

The point is, your solution is a rather limited patch. While specifically "at-will" abilities indeed could be limited, there are lot of things that can't be. Your solution would be heterogeneous, in short.
Wait... When did it became a solution? :smallconfused: And to what exactly?
At-will abilities are one of the problems with monsters played as PCs. From what I understand they're a big reason for high LAs. If my "solution" would lower LAs by at least 1 point and/or make playing monsters as PCs a little more viable, that's a step in the right direction.
I don't really mind at-will abilities in my PF games, so players can play monsters (of course I still can veto any monster I want and most of my games are "normal" races only).

[Doug Lampert]

All of that is only worth +1 CR if you go by the rules, since that's what it takes to get an NPC class level. At most there's a gear discrepancy, but it's not vast enough to account for the rest of LA.

The rules in this case are stupid, and BADLY SO. That +1 to CR for two levels of a disaccociated class (say cleric) is simply globally superior to what you get for two more monster levels, which would also be +1 to CR for the suggested outsider.

For high CR/LA monsters it is in fact substantially supperior to other things that are claimed to be worth +5 or 6 to CR.

It's the gear. For ECL they had to at least come vaguely close, and the gear is really worth that much.


The reason that ECL and CR diverge is because the ability to navigate a campaign world as part of a team has nothing to do with the ability to take up 25% of a team's daily resources. There simply is no logical connection between the two.

No logical connection? For the case which is alleged to be most carefully examined, core races and classes, the two are IDENTICAL. That's a heck of a no logical connection and no relation!

But assume you're correct. For the obvious benchmark case for what you get when CR includes gear they are identical by pure coincedence and chance.

Name a monster with a LOWER ECL than CR. If it's no relation then they should be all over the place relative to each other. They're not. Instead EVERY SINGLE ONE is off in the exact direction you would expect if gear were the difference, and the ones where gear is taken into account in CR are equal both ways.

They are CLEARLY related for the one case where gear isn't the determining factor, but EVERY other case is unrelated according to you, and that they are all coincidentally off the same direction must be pure coincidence.

DougL

[JadePhoenix]

{Scrubbed}

[Urpriest]

No logical connection? For the case which is alleged to be most carefully examined, core races and classes, the two are IDENTICAL. That's a heck of a no logical connection and no relation!

That one case is precisely the one that fails though. NPCs are notoriously over-CRed.


But assume you're correct. For the obvious benchmark case for what you get when CR includes gear they are identical by pure coincedence and chance.

Name a monster with a LOWER ECL than CR. If it's no relation then they should be all over the place relative to each other. They're not. Instead EVERY SINGLE ONE is off in the exact direction you would expect if gear were the difference, and the ones where gear is taken into account in CR are equal both ways.

They are CLEARLY related for the one case where gear isn't the determining factor, but EVERY other case is unrelated according to you, and that they are all coincidentally off the same direction must be pure coincidence.

DougL

Unrelated was a bit of an exaggeration. Monsters do not have lower ECL than CR because any ability that makes you better at taking up resources also makes you better at hindering opponents in a campaign. However, not every ability that makes you more powerful in a campaign makes you better at taking up 25% of party resources. It's squares and circles. The only sorts of things that would act in the other direction would be "final strike" type abilities, or abilities that are only good in specific places (around a given tree for example), and these are precisely the sorts of abilities that make a monster get LA --.

More directly, very few monsters have substantially higher CR than HD because in order to take up resources a creature needs to last (this is also why 4e monsters have higher HP than 4e PCs), while ECL is always higher than HD because the game engine doesn't make sense without character level<=ECL.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please keep it civil in here.

[Andorax]

One issue still baffles me to this day. Dig long enough, and you can still find examples of creatures with a "casts as a X of level Y" that have a CR less than Y.

WHY?

If a Human Sorcerer 9 is a CR 9 foe, how is it even remotely possible that a creature with 9 or more HD, resistances, enhanced ability scores, and "casts as a 9th level sorcerer" can be CR 8?

[Duke of URL]

One issue still baffles me to this day. Dig long enough, and you can still find examples of creatures with a "casts as a X of level Y" that have a CR less than Y.

WHY?

If a Human Sorcerer 9 is a CR 9 foe, how is it even remotely possible that a creature with 9 or more HD, resistances, enhanced ability scores, and "casts as a 9th level sorcerer" can be CR 8?

Off the top of my head, inherent weaknesses and sub-optimal feat selection.

From a more practical standpoint, If sorcerer is a non-associated class and it's not a 1 HD (or less) humanoid, it's quite possible that the CR math makes it come out at CR 8.

That's not to say that it makes sense or that the system isn't borked (it is), but that's how it can happen.

[BlueEyes]

If a Human Sorcerer 9 is a CR 9 foe, how is it even remotely possible that a creature with 9 or more HD, resistances, enhanced ability scores, and "casts as a 9th level sorcerer" can be CR 8?
A human Sorcerer has magic items. A monster gets only what's in his statblock.

[Urpriest]

A human Sorcerer has magic items. A monster gets only what's in his statblock.

Plus any usable treasure. But yes, at most that's usually 1/3 what an NPC has.