CR = ECL as a rule of thumb?

[danielxcutter]

Would it be reasonable to treat the ECL of monster PCs as their CR, with obvious adjustment for monsters that have abilities slightly out of sync for a similar PC? For example, a Planetar is CR 16, but casts spells as a 17th-level Cleric and has a bunch of SLAs, so if you want to open that option up to players, you should make the ECL higher than their CR. Same for other monsters with racial casting higher than their CR, really.

I hear Pathfinder does something similar, but I'm talking about 3.5 now. And this isn't for a game right now, I'm just curious if doing that as a rule of thumb, for exceptions for obvious examples where that doesn't quite work, might work.

[Doug Lampert]

Would it be reasonable to treat the ECL of monster PCs as their CR, with obvious adjustment for monsters that have abilities slightly out of sync for a similar PC? For example, a Planetar is CR 16, but casts spells as a 17th-level Cleric and has a bunch of SLAs, so if you want to open that option up to players, you should make the ECL higher than their CR. Same for other monsters with racial casting higher than their CR, really.

I hear Pathfinder does something similar, but I'm talking about 3.5 now. And this isn't for a game right now, I'm just curious if doing that as a rule of thumb, for exceptions for obvious examples where that doesn't quite work, might work.

No. The main problem is that you're adding gear and elite abilities when you make something a PC. This adds massively to power. Then you're letting it re-choose feats and the like.

The result is can be vastly more powerful than a MM creature. You're better off to simply make an individual determination, or see the various LA assignment threads.

[Jack_Simth]

Would it be reasonable to treat the ECL of monster PCs as their CR, with obvious adjustment for monsters that have abilities slightly out of sync for a similar PC? For example, a Planetar is CR 16, but casts spells as a 17th-level Cleric and has a bunch of SLAs, so if you want to open that option up to players, you should make the ECL higher than their CR. Same for other monsters with racial casting higher than their CR, really.

I hear Pathfinder does something similar, but I'm talking about 3.5 now. And this isn't for a game right now, I'm just curious if doing that as a rule of thumb, for exceptions for obvious examples where that doesn't quite work, might work.

For a higher power campaign, it can work. Be warned, though, that CR is all over the map, and a lot of critters have at will abilities that are fine for one-off fights (how monsters are intended to be used), but do really odd things to the game in PC hands outside of combat.

[ericgrau]

The result is can be vastly more powerful than a MM creature. You're better off to simply make an individual determination, or see the various LA assignment threads.
The thing with those threads is that the value of a level varies by optimization. The existing LA values are actually pretty good... for low optimization with core-like power... rounded up to the nearest whole number... in ideal circumstances. For your own gaming group figure out what a good ECL multiplier is and/or look at the creature. And also consider circumstances. Mainly it may be good to reduce it further at low level.

[danielxcutter]

No. The main problem is that you're adding gear and elite abilities when you make something a PC. This adds massively to power. Then you're letting it re-choose feats and the like.

Well, a PC Fighter is going to have better stats and gear than a NPC Commoner, after all...


The result is can be vastly more powerful than a MM creature. You're better off to simply make an individual determination, or see the various LA assignment threads.

Oh believe me, that's why I said "rule of thumb" and not "universal rule". I mentioned the Planetar as a good example where that rule wouldn't work, after all. Mostly, this idea is for things like, say, giants, which have much more RHD than their CR, so they don't really work at all with the standard ECL rules.


For a higher power campaign, it can work. Be warned, though, that CR is all over the map, and a lot of critters have at will abilities that are fine for one-off fights (how monsters are intended to be used), but do really odd things to the game in PC hands outside of combat.

Yeah, I suppose. The LA-assignment thread by Inevitability makes note of monsters like that.

[Troacctid]

CR only evaluates the creature's effectiveness over a single combat, which means if you try to translate it to a PC, it will vastly undervalue certain abilities. The vampire is a classic example—its domination abilities alone will rapidly break a campaign in the hands of a PC, even though they're totally fine for a villain. At-will SLAs in general have a similar problem—CR doesn't really distinguish between 1/day and unlimited use. Flight becomes available earlier than intended, invalidating many low-level challenges. And then there's the plethora of +0 CR templates, which are now completely free.

Bottom line, it works for a lot of monsters, but crashes and burns for others. I would only consider it on a monster-by-monster basis.

[HouseRules]

A good example is the Succubus.

In 3.0, a Succubus is CR 9, ECL 12, but has 12 Sorcerer Caster Levels. Thus, gaining levels in Sorcerer would stack Caster Levels together.

In 3.5, a Succubus is CR 7, ECL 12, and does not have Sorcerer Caster Levels. Thus, gaining levels in Sorcerer would not stack Caster Levels together.

[Nifft]

Would it be reasonable to treat the ECL of monster PCs as their CR, with obvious adjustment for monsters that have abilities slightly out of sync for a similar PC? For example, a Planetar is CR 16, but casts spells as a 17th-level Cleric and has a bunch of SLAs, so if you want to open that option up to players, you should make the ECL higher than their CR. Same for other monsters with racial casting higher than their CR, really.

I hear Pathfinder does something similar, but I'm talking about 3.5 now. And this isn't for a game right now, I'm just curious if doing that as a rule of thumb, for exceptions for obvious examples where that doesn't quite work, might work.

It could work... if you re-wrote all the monsters where it doesn't work.

Pathfinder did re-write all the monster, so (presumably) it works okay for Pathfinder.

[OgresAreCute]

It could work... if you re-wrote all the monsters where it doesn't work.

Pathfinder did re-write all the monster, so (presumably) it works okay for Pathfinder.

Pathfinder still has a few Sorcerer casting = CR in addition to d10 hit dice, full BAB, lots of skill points, etc outsiders running about, but that's why you make it a general rule so your DM can say "no".

[vasilidor]

The level adjustment created for playing monsters was designed so that after taking it into account, once the party was of equal level to the monster character, they would be stronger than it. then there is the fact that in DnD character level = challenge rating, and in pathfinder character level -1 is challenge rating for player characters. so that is what made sense to me. but then CR is whack to begin with.

[HouseRules]

The level adjustment created for playing monsters was designed so that after taking it into account, once the party was of equal level to the monster character, they would be stronger than it. then there is the fact that in DnD character level = challenge rating, and in pathfinder character level -1 is challenge rating for player characters. so that is what made sense to me. but then CR is whack to begin with.

The three roles of 3E

Combat = +1 BAB
Skills = 6 + Int Bonus Skill Points or 8 + Int Bonus Skill Points
Magic = Full Caster Level per Class Level


A class may fulfill at least one, and at most three of the roles. Dragon HD (Racial Class) always counts as all three roles. Calculate the roles individually, the highest role (not roll) is the base, and half the other two roles (not rolls) are added to find the final Challenge Rating.

The other rule of thumb is the Level Adjustment general guidelines.

Spell Level 1 = Minimum ECL 1
Spell Level 2 = Minimum ECL 3
Spell Level 3 = Minimum ECL 5
Spell Level 4 = Minimum ECL 7
Spell Level 5 = Minimum ECL 9
Spell Level 6 = Minimum ECL 11
Spell Level 7 = Minimum ECL 13
Spell Level 8 = Minimum ECL 15
Spell Level 9 = Minimum ECL 17


Thus, the Level Adjustment is calculated based upon the strongest ability a character has and see if they match the Minimum ECL.

[Quertus]

The thing with those threads is that the value of a level varies by optimization. The existing LA values are actually pretty good... for low optimization with core-like power... rounded up to the nearest whole number... in ideal circumstances. For your own gaming group figure out what a good ECL multiplier is and/or look at the creature. And also consider circumstances. Mainly it may be good to reduce it further at low level.

Pretty much this. The value of monsters varies by optimization level. At most of my tables, ECL=CR would be the best rule of thumb.

Honestly, the best answer is, start with that as a base, and balance to the table. If a 20th level Fighter, 8th level Wizard, and Awakened Dire Lion / Crusader 12 are balanced at your table, do that. If, OTOH, a Druid 8, Druid 20, and Awakened Dire Lion / Druid 12 are balanced at your table (due to different optimization levels or different player skill), then do that.

You can balance to the table by how much you optimize with what you are given, or with how much you give based on optimization level. But, either way, if you want the table to be balanced, the table has to work to create balanced characters. Rules alone will not produce balance.

[ngilop]

Amazingly I found this works very well for pure beatstick races Like the ogre. This is mostly due to the belief that things with a lot of strength are more powerful than things with spell casting that comes with all d20 games


Anything with spells, spell-likes, or half decent supernatural abilities CR as Level tends to be a bit skewed, as was stated by Troacctid, at will spell that really only sees use in the background for story purposes and maybe ONCE in a fight becomes very game breaking when it is used ALL the time because as the player the story is foreground. Though, with vampires I feel the most offending case is not their supernatural abilities, but how difficult it is to kill them. Players are expected to go though the lengths to kill the vampire, random Orc warlord just knows this dude showed up at his fortress and got his chest ran thorugh by his spear. he has no idea he needs to go over the hills and actually kill him by driving a steak hrough his hearta nd cutting his head off stuffing the stub with holy wafers.

[HouseRules]

Also CR X means 20% resource of a party of 4 characters level X; thus, in a one-on-one situation, CR X means 80% resource of a Level X character.

[Nifft]

Also CR X means 20% resource of a party of 4 characters level X; thus, in a one-on-one situation, CR X means 80% resource of a Level X character.

Why would you give a monster the same WBL as a PC?

That's entirely separate from CR = ECL.

[HouseRules]

Why would you give a monster the same WBL as a PC?

That's entirely separate from CR = ECL.

Should be more explicit. In a one-on-one fight, Level X vs CR X, a character would spend 80% of their wealth, or have 40% death rate.

3E Combat Capacity Table

Level Combat Capacity Challenge Rating Combat Capacity
-5 1/8 3
-4 1/6 4
-3 1/4 6
-2 1/3 8
-1 1/2 12
0 2/3 16
1 30 1 24
2 60 2 48
3 90 3 72
4 120 4 96
5 180 5 144
6 240 6 192
7 360 7 288
8 480 8 384
9 720 9 576
10 960 10 768
11 1440 11 1152
12 1920 12 1536
13 2880 13 2304
14 3840 14 3072
15 5760 15 4608
16 7680 16 6144
17 11520 17 9216
18 15360 18 12288
19 23040 19 18432
20 30720 20 24576


Pathfinder Combat Capacity Table

Level Combat Capacity Challenge Rating Combat Capacity
-5 1/8 4
-4 1/6 6
-3 1/4 8
-2 1/3 12
-1 1/2 16
0 2/3 24
1 40 1 32
2 80 2 64
3 120 3 96
4 160 4 128
5 240 5 192
6 320 6 256
7 480 7 384
8 640 8 512
9 960 9 768
10 1280 10 1024
11 1920 11 1536
12 2560 12 2048
13 3840 13 3072
14 5120 14 4096
15 7680 15 6144
16 10240 16 8192
17 15360 17 12288
18 20480 18 16384
19 30720 19 24576
20 40960 20 32768

[Necroticplague]

By and by large, this would be fairly broken. Just off the top of my head, the feat system starts to break down you have HD>level, which is fairly common for beaststick monsters.

However, I prefer something that's broken in a way that creates interesting options, than the current LA system that's broken in a way that restricts things to very few options.

[HouseRules]

I'm pretty sure the rule of thumb is (CR = ECL - X) for 3E and PF, where X is the decreased Effective Character Level because they are single combat.