PDA

View Full Version : Cr, Ecl, La, What Does This Mean!?



Realms of Chaos
2008-04-05, 01:31 PM
Somehow, the concepts of challenge rating, encounter level, and level adjustment have entangled themselves in my mind in a way that makes absolutely no sense.

What bugs me is partly that we judge how powerful of a character we are allowed to make based not on the average challenge rating of the party but on the average encounter level. Also, it seems interesting to me how level adjustment is added to your encounter level and not to your CR.

Perhaps I can explain my problem better by example. A human, elf, dwarf, etc. with levels in NPC classes have a CR equal to their level -1. I assume, therefore, that such a being with levels in PC classes has a CR equal to their level. Under this assumption, it seems completely natural to just judge PCs by virtue of their CR, which will in most cases equal their level anyways. However, we judge by ECL. Therefore, for the purposes of a campaign, a player is punnished for taking a level in, let's say, expert, instead of getting the compensation that CR would suggest (an additional level in an NPC class to raise them to CR 1 like their friends).

Also, there is another serious issue with level adjustment and ECL that comes up over and over again. Many people recommend against playing things with level adjustments. Their reasons are primarily that you end up with few hit points. However, there is another reason for this. When your DM makes encounters for your party, the CR of what you fight = the ECL of the party. To demonstrate this example, let's pretend that in a 4th level party, a new player wanted to play as a Petal Sorceress 1 (1 racial hit dice + 2 LA + 1 level = 4 ECL). Alas, that Petal in only half as strong (CR 2) as the fighter 4 in her party (CR 4). Furthermore, that Petal will be expected to fight things on a regular basis that possess twice her CR or more, making each battle suicidal. Furthermore, as if to add insult to injury, that petal sorceress 1 could logically be expected to fight Petal sorceress 3s (CR 4) on a regular basis, something that is obviously beyond their abilities.

I mean, it seems to just be common sense that if a Ogre Barbarian 1 is CR 4 and a Human Barbarian 4 is CR 4, that the player should get to play as either one with impunity as they are by definition equally powerful! Shouldn't someone have thought at some point to make player CR and monster CR actually mean the same thing rather than just tacking LA onto the latter. I mean, It's not as though the game revolves around the players. Wait a moment, yes it does.

It seems to me that ECL and LA are there for the sole purposes of explaining how "Monster CR is better than Player CR" and discouraging choice of race beyond the normal cannon by stacking the odds tremendously against such a rogue (adjective, not the class) player.

Does anyone else understand what is going on better than me or is the system of ECL and LA actually as bad as it looks (which, if you are interested, is looking worse than the truespeech system)?

tyckspoon
2008-04-05, 01:47 PM
mm.. no, no, that sounds about right. The CR system doesn't work outside a fairly narrow set of circumstances and most LAs are punitively high for what they offer, seemingly for the purpose of dissuading players from using monsters.

There are some situations where the differing LAs and CR adjustments make sense; some abilities are far more valuable over the long term for a player than they are for what is typically only a single encounter, so they're valued more highly in LA than they are in CR. Stuff like at-will spell-like abilities (teleport and buffs are really nice to have whenever you want), although sometimes they overdo this too and ding something with a high LA for having weak or largely useless at-wills.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-04-05, 02:34 PM
Also, there is another serious issue with level adjustment and ECL that comes up over and over again. Many people recommend against playing things with level adjustments. Their reasons are primarily that you end up with few hit points.
And loss of BaB, casters levels are a big one too.



However, there is another reason for this. When your DM makes encounters for your party, the CR of what you fight = the ECL of the party. To demonstrate this example, let's pretend that in a 4th level party, a new player wanted to play as a Petal Sorceress 1 (1 racial hit dice + 2 LA + 1 level = 4 ECL). Alas, that Petal in only half as strong (CR 2) as the fighter 4 in her party (CR 4). Furthermore, that Petal will be expected to fight things on a regular basis that possess twice her CR or more, making each battle suicidal.

Well the petal supposedly has extra abilities to compensate for the +2 LA, it however rarely compensates for the loss of caster levels.



Furthermore, as if to add insult to injury, that petal sorceress 1 could logically be expected to fight Petal sorceress 3s (CR 4) on a regular basis, something that is obviously beyond their abilities.


Well to be fair the petal sorceress 1 has at least 3 friends to help fight the petal sorceress 3.

Realms of Chaos
2008-04-05, 02:37 PM
All that I'm saying is that if DnD is player-centric (and what game isn't), you should at least take the trouble to assign CRs to potentially playable races based on how powerful they'd be as players. You know, just cut out the middle man of the level adjustment altogether. It's basic sense.

Also, there have been some real CR discrepencies as of late. The Arkamoi (MM V, p 184), for example, is CR 4. However, it has the spellcasting of a Sorcerer 4, better hit points, and better abilities. By every right, its CR should be 5 or 6 (in which case it would not be rediculous to use its CR in place of HD + LA). Instead, however, the creators figured that they were justified in simply making a tough CR 4 creature (formerly known as the CR 5 creature) by making the LA so outrageous that it guarantees a lack of play.

As far as I understand, LA is defined as a bonus to ECL to cover a gap between the creature's HD and what they are capable of. However, in the case of creatures that possess LA, why isn't this just factored into the CR? Basic sense. If a creature has 4 hit dice but is more powerful than a 4th level character, up the CR instead of the LA.

Chronos
2008-04-05, 02:43 PM
The reason that CR and ECL are different scales is that some abilities are more useful to the party, while some are more useful to the enemies. Consider, for instance, that you have a choice between two different spell-like abilities: You can get a spell-like ability, usable once per round, that makes a single target save or be put to sleep, or you can get a spell-like ability, usable twice a week, that makes a single target save (same DC) or be slain. If you have a PC, which one of those would you prefer? Obviously, the sleep one: You can use it much more often, and you can always just slit the enemies' throats after you sleep them, if you want. Now ask, which of those abilities would you less like to see on a monster you're fighting? Obviously, the death one: You can just wake up sleeping party-mates after the fight, and the recharge time won't matter, since you're not going to be encountering that monster again.

So, if you had templates which gave those two abilities, the sleep template would have LA higher than its CR adjustment, since it's more useful for players, but the kill template would have a CR adjustment higher than its LA, since it's more useful for monsters.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-05, 02:44 PM
Keep in mind that one character could be expected to be "challenged" (have to work hard in order to win, but not really risk death expect by poor luck) by an encounter with a CR of ECL-4. So a CR 4 petal sorcerer 3 would be an appropriate challenge for a petal sorcerer 5. Hey, sounds pretty accurate! (For reference, a part of four 4th-level PCs facing a group of four 4th-level NPCs of CR 4 should expect a TPK, since it's EL 8. That's not too inaccurate, either; the situation can turn lethal for the PCs very easily, when they're matched level-for-level.)

LAs really hit you hard at lower levels; at higher levels, the effects are negligible unless you're a spellcaster.

The ability to fly is definitely worth LA +2 in my book; in general, I don't allow anything that can fly on its own power, because it's one of the most adventure-breaking abilities.


Also, a NPC ogre barbarian 1 and a PC human barbarian 4 are not equally powerful; in fact, a NPC human barbarian 4 (CR 4) is not as powerful as a PC human barbarian 4. The PC has, by the rules, a lot more equipment (which is an important part of the CR/EL balance), and is more powerful - not actually a CR 4.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-04-05, 02:49 PM
All that I'm saying is that if DnD is player-centric (and what game isn't), you should at least take the trouble to assign CRs to potentially playable races based on how powerful they'd be as players. You know, just cut out the middle man of the level adjustment altogether. It's basic sense.
But what happens if one of the creatures abilities is reasonable in the hands of an NPC but game breaking in the hands of a PC, what then?
That is the reason why CR and LA are separated.



Also, there have been some real CR discrepencies as of late. The Arkamoi (MM V, p 184), for example, is CR 4. However, it has the spellcasting of a Sorcerer 4, better hit points, and better abilities. By every right, its CR should be 5 or 6 (in which case it would not be rediculous to use its CR in place of HD + LA). Instead, however, the creators figured that they were justified in simply making a tough CR 4 creature (formerly known as the CR 5 creature) by making the LA so outrageous that it guarantees a lack of play.


Agreed, CR system isn't very good, just look at everyone's favourite crab.
But the current system still leaves for more freedom in the case mentioned above.

Realms of Chaos
2008-04-05, 03:08 PM
abilities more useful to PCs vs. NPCs and visa versa, eh?

By that logic, monks should get a CR adjustment (quavering palm) while warlocks are clearly broken. :smallamused:

Also, monstrous classes must be one of the most broken creations ever devised, seeing as treasure/level applies to them and not just to their levels in "classes" (as is the case for NPCs). Indeed, if you are an ogre and have not become more poor for it, you must be the most powerful member of your entire team [/Sarcasm?].

Note that in no book in any area does it every mention CR adjustment for treasure (beyond that given for having a symbiont). By RAW, an NPC human barbarian 4 is just as powerful as a PC barbarian 4 as a Ogre barbarian 1. For that matter, as rediculous as it sounds, a dragon is just as powerful whether they have spent all of their excessive (x4 standard) gold on equipment or possess no equipment at all.

Generally speaking, I think that there are so few abilities that actuallly cement the diference between CR and ECL that we may have just been better off if they hadn't been created. If all of the at wills were made as 3/days, all of the 1/weeks were simply eliminated, and a few other changes had been made, ECL could've easily never existed, saving us a tremendous headache.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-04-05, 03:14 PM
Note that in no book in any area does it every mention CR adjustment for treasure (beyond that given for having a symbiont). By RAW, an NPC human barbarian 4 is just as powerful as a PC barbarian 4 as a Ogre barbarian 1.

Incorrect. The same character with PC wealth is more powerful than one with NPC wealth. That's plain fact - don't be silly.

Moreover, PCs have no CR, just like monsters have no XP. It's not a valid comparison at all.

And there are official, WotC-printed examples of increased CR for increased wealth or equipment. In the Drow of the Underdark book, an example NPC has had it's CR increased by 1 for possessing a minor artifact.


A good example of an ability that's is too powerful in PC hands is vampiric energy drain (presuming you allow the drained hp to stack). A vampire NPC in combat with PCs (the intended use for the ability) is just fine. A PC vampire using the ability to kill a hundred tied-up bulls 15 minutes before entering combat is pretty broken. Similarly, an efreet is a mid-level threat, but an efreet PC gives the party free access to wish.

Eldariel
2008-04-05, 03:21 PM
CR is an effed up system anyways. Generally it's better to just forget about it and throw the encounters together based on:
-PCs' damage potential vs. Monster HP
-PCs' to hit vs. Monster AC
-Monster damage potential vs. PCs' HP
-Monster to hit vs. PCs' AC
-PCs' ability to force saves in each category vs. Monster saves
-PCs' saves vs. Monster's ability to force saves
-Any abilities that could make PCs unable to reach the opponent (burrow-speed, fly-speed, etc.)
-PCs' actions vs. Monster's actions.

If you make 'em have about the same amount of advantages and disadvantages in those categories, the fight should be about equally fair.

Realms of Chaos
2008-04-05, 03:36 PM
At this point, our system is so inherently messed up that I don't know what to think anymore. Then again, that's what you get when you consider that 3.5 puts common sense above gameplay.

For the first time, I am seriously looking forward to 4.0.

DementedFellow
2008-04-05, 04:32 PM
At this point, our system is so inherently messed up that I don't know what to think anymore. Then again, that's what you get when you consider that 3.5 puts common sense above gameplay.

For the first time, I am seriously looking forward to 4.0.

To be fair, I don't think much has been said that the monsters used as a good challenge in 4e won't be based off the items in Eldariel's post.

FlyMolo
2008-04-05, 04:42 PM
The problem is manyfold. Player CR=/= monster Cr. 1/day abilities are way more powerful in a monster.

Look at racial classes, and imagine an ECL 15 illithid player vs a CR9 actual illithid. Identical, except in CR. one is supposed to be around 15, and one is 9.

It's silly to imagine a CR 9 monster beating a CR 15 one 50% of the time.

The whole system is a little funky.

AslanCross
2008-04-05, 05:23 PM
To be fair, I don't think much has been said that the monsters used as a good challenge in 4e won't be based off the items in Eldariel's post.

Monsters in 4E will be using levels as well, which at least is less cumbersome than "Some monsters get CR +1 every 4 HD, others get it for every 3 HD, others for every 2 HD, but not all monsters advance like that, because some advance by class level. Wait, don't forget size increases and ability arrays and...."

The system is quite confusing and LA sucks, but I do think that some valid points were raised:
-PC wealth definitely makes them a lot stronger than NPCs, let alone monsters that don't wear gear.
-Monsters are not meant to be challenged by players. They are meant to challenge players.