Cyclone_Joker wrote:
Non-snarky answer: 3, as best I can tell, although the table on p49 isn't terribly clear when dealing with such awful creatures.
At least you gave me a place to look, which is more than I had. Thanks, OTTer man!
| No Goblins Allowed http://862838.jrbdt8wd.asia/ |
|
| A question about CR http://862838.jrbdt8wd.asia/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=129 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | draco1119 [ Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | A question about CR |
I know that doubling a set number of monsters adds +1 (for example, changing from 3 kobolds to 6 makes an encounter go from CR 1 to CR 2, or having two human rogue 3s is a CR 4), but what if I'm using different monsters? I have an encounter that I want to make a CR 3 using a kobold sorcerer 2 and skeletons. A skeleton is CR 1/3, so do I need 3 skeletons or 6? |
|
| Author: | Cyclone_Joker [ Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
draco1119 wrote: I know that doubling a set number of monsters adds +1 (for example, changing from 3 kobolds to 6 makes an encounter go from CR 1 to CR 2, or having two human rogue 3s is a CR 4), but what if I'm using different monsters? Snarky answer: You need 0 skeletons and a few things actually worth their CR.I have an encounter that I want to make a CR 3 using a kobold sorcerer 2 and skeletons. A skeleton is CR 1/3, so do I need 3 skeletons or 6? Non-snarky answer: 3, as best I can tell, although the table on p49 isn't terribly clear when dealing with such awful creatures. |
|
| Author: | draco1119 [ Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
Cyclone_Joker wrote: Non-snarky answer: 3, as best I can tell, although the table on p49 isn't terribly clear when dealing with such awful creatures. At least you gave me a place to look, which is more than I had. Thanks, OTTer man! |
|
| Author: | Zherog [ Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
I use this encounter calculator. It's not perfect, especially at the low end, but it's good enough. |
|
| Author: | draco1119 [ Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
Zherog wrote: I use this encounter calculator. It's not perfect, especially at the low end, but it's good enough. Thanks! I noticed what you meant: a CR2 + 3 CR1/3 is a "Very Hard" EL3, but dropping one of those CR1/3s makes it an "Easy" EL3.  One thing it did make me change my mind on was the last encounter. Originally I was going to have a CR3 acquired wererat/rogue, a CR2 natural wererat, and 2 CR1/2 Fiendish Dire Rats for a EL 5 (APL is 3). That looked like it was going to be WAY too hard, so I think I'll use the FDRs in a different encounter. |
|
| Author: | Ragnar Lodbrok [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
Cyclone_Joker wrote: draco1119 wrote: I know that doubling a set number of monsters adds +1 (for example, changing from 3 kobolds to 6 makes an encounter go from CR 1 to CR 2, or having two human rogue 3s is a CR 4), but what if I'm using different monsters? Snarky answer: You need 0 skeletons and a few things actually worth their CR.I have an encounter that I want to make a CR 3 using a kobold sorcerer 2 and skeletons. A skeleton is CR 1/3, so do I need 3 skeletons or 6? Skeletons can be useful. Sure, wights and such are outright better, and zombie dragons are a much better use of the Animate pool, but you don't get nearly as many, and a dread necromancer's skeletons aren't as bad for their HD. They clear traps, and an army of NPC redshirts is roughly on the same level. Of course, if you intend to actually challenge a party, I'm in agreement. |
|
| Author: | Cyclone_Joker [ Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
I'm actually more confused as to why a sorcerer would use castings of Command Undead on a bunch of 1hd skeletons, now that I think about it. |
|
| Author: | Ragnar Lodbrok [ Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
Or why a sorcerer would waste spells known on it in the first place. |
|
| Author: | Cyclone_Joker [ Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
He could have found a knowstone or something. A level 2 knowstone is within level 4 NPC WBL, if I remember correctly. |
|
| Author: | Ragnar Lodbrok [ Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
Still. Why not just pawn it off, then? A sorcerer can do better things with the money. |
|
| Author: | squinty_eyes [ Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
You know, I actually have no idea how CR works at all. ~SE++ |
|
| Author: | Ragnar Lodbrok [ Sat Oct 19, 2013 10:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
It's a very imprecise system. I never really figured it out, and just eyeball it. |
|
| Author: | Cyclone_Joker [ Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
Ragnar Lodbrok wrote: Still. Why not just pawn it off, then? A sorcerer can do better things with the money. Better things than buy Knowstones? Bull, although this particular spell is lulzily bad.That said, the sell price of a level 2 knowstone will only let them get a level one knowstone, so I honestly wouldn't blame a sorcerer for holding onto it until they afford to move up, given how powerful this spell is in it niche. squinty_eyes wrote: You know, I actually have no idea how CR works at all. Neither did the writers. Just eyeball it and call it good.
|
|
| Author: | Ragnar Lodbrok [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
Well, they could buy a level one Knowstone with a more generally useful spell. |
|
| Author: | squinty_eyes [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 1:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
Cyclone_Joker wrote: squinty_eyes wrote: You know, I actually have no idea how CR works at all. Neither did the writers. Just eyeball it and call it good.Yeah, that's the general sense I've gotten. Seems the consensus is to just keep the encounters somewhat reasonable and reward EXP based on performance and how difficult you see it (or just award based on what percent of the current level you think they did). ~SE++ |
|
| Author: | Cyclone_Joker [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 3:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
Ragnar Lodbrok wrote: Well, they could buy a level one Knowstone with a more generally useful spell. Point, but there is merit in buying a low-level knowstone of a situational but powerful spell like that. Admittedly, scrolls are simpler, but for a spell you'd expect to be casting a lot when using it, it's something that would be reasonable to hold on to. This is a perfectly reasonable knowstone to have, assuming you got it as loot or something.
|
|
| Author: | Ragnar Lodbrok [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 11:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
I suppose. |
|
| Author: | Cyclone_Joker [ Sun Oct 20, 2013 5:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: A question about CR |
Plus, what level one spell would a sorcerer put in a knowstone that it doesn't already have? |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|