L&L: These are not the rules you're looking for

[GreyICE]

just look into the book. This is how it was defined. Notice, that an appropriate chalenge should use up 20% of the resources. If you read the whole paragraph, you would have noticed.

I have. And check out your own standards there, and apply them. A hill giant is the same CR as a level 7 barbarian. So 1 hill giant in an encounter is equivalent to 1 level 7 barbarian.

That's... utterly absurd. A hill giant does massive damage and has 102 hp, far more than a level 7 barbarian (assuming the level 7 barbarian rolls 6 12s for HP, he'd still need at 16 in con or so to equal that. With more reasonable rolls he'd need about a 26).

Yet the CR rules clearly state that 2 Hill Giants is just as challenging as 2 level 7 barbarians.

Nowadays we'd have the vernacular to properly express what is going on. The Barbarian is a standard level 7. The Hill Giant is an elite level 7.

Yet they both have the same CR. And that's why XP Budgets are much saner than CR - CR allows no differentiation between higher level monsters and more challenging monsters of a lower level, and that's not even getting into what it does to solos.

 

[rogueattorney]

The quote that stuck out to me the most:

"Adventure Design Guidelines: Stuff such as XP budgets, treasure tables, encounter charts, and so on are there to make it easier to create adventures and build your campaign. If you are a veteran DM, it's quite likely you won't use any of this stuff."

I've been playing D&D since 1981. So I probably qualify as veteran. I use treasure tables and encounter charts ALL THE FREAKING TIME. There's really nothing like a cool random chart to give you a spark of an idea and spice up your encounters and dungeons with things you might not have thought to use otherwise.

I think that assuming stuff like that is for "NOOBS" completely misses why products like the 1e DMG and Judges Guild's Ready Ref Sheets maintain a fairly high reputation as useful products these many years later.

Cool random charts are also a possible hook to get those who might not be sold on the rules to take a look at the new edition for usable bits in their own edition of choice.

 

[Minigiant]

I have. And check out your own standards there, and apply them. A hill giant is the same CR as a level 7 barbarian. So 1 hill giant in an encounter is equivalent to 1 level 7 barbarian.

That's... utterly absurd. A hill giant does massive damage and has 102 hp, far more than a level 7 barbarian (assuming the level 7 barbarian rolls 6 12s for HP, he'd still need at 16 in con or so to equal that. With more reasonable rolls he'd need about a 26).

Yet the CR rules clearly state that 2 Hill Giants is just as challenging as 2 level 7 barbarians.

Nowadays we'd have the vernacular to properly express what is going on. The Barbarian is a standard level 7. The Hill Giant is an elite level 7.

Yet they both have the same CR. And that's why XP Budgets are much saner than CR - CR allows no differentiation between higher level monsters and more challenging monsters of a lower level, and that's not even getting into what it does to solos.

That's not a problem with the CR system. That is bad design of the barbarian. Obviously a level 7 Barbarian should have the Str and Con equivalent to a hill giant.

 

[Bobbum Man]

I like the CR, and since they said "feel free to ignore", it shouldn't be an issue.

That's not good enough.

I demand a simpler and more intuitive system that I can ignore at my leisure.

 

[Kynn]

The quote that stuck out to me the most:

"Adventure Design Guidelines: Stuff such as XP budgets, treasure tables, encounter charts, and so on are there to make it easier to create adventures and build your campaign. If you are a veteran DM, it's quite likely you won't use any of this stuff."

I've been playing D&D since 1981. So I probably qualify as veteran. I use treasure tables and encounter charts ALL THE FREAKING TIME. There's really nothing like a cool random chart to give you a spark of an idea and spice up your encounters and dungeons with things you might not have thought to use otherwise.

Yeah, I noticed that too. I'm a pretty experienced 4e DM (going back to AD&D times) and XP budgets are very useful to me for encounter design.

I wonder why Mearls seems to be so out of touch on this point.

 

[avin]

After all he said the only thing that interest you is that roles are out? This forum isn't what it used to be.

What about advice for new players in the books. What kind of advice it should be?

He even claims to give us a flowchart for crafting an adventure. Don't you think that is a tad bit more interesting?

Both 4E DMG, in special the second, have excelent advice for newcomer DMs (better than any other edition, if you ask me, even if 4E's far from perfect for me). Veteran DM's doesn't care too much about that...

And most people (I suppose) playes more than DM, so, people focus on player stuff...

 

[Janaxstrus]

I have. And check out your own standards there, and apply them. A hill giant is the same CR as a level 7 barbarian. So 1 hill giant in an encounter is equivalent to 1 level 7 barbarian.

That's... utterly absurd. A hill giant does massive damage and has 102 hp, far more than a level 7 barbarian (assuming the level 7 barbarian rolls 6 12s for HP, he'd still need at 16 in con or so to equal that. With more reasonable rolls he'd need about a 26).

Yet the CR rules clearly state that 2 Hill Giants is just as challenging as 2 level 7 barbarians.

Nowadays we'd have the vernacular to properly express what is going on. The Barbarian is a standard level 7. The Hill Giant is an elite level 7.

Yet they both have the same CR. And that's why XP Budgets are much saner than CR - CR allows no differentiation between higher level monsters and more challenging monsters of a lower level, and that's not even getting into what it does to solos.

Str 18 (20) (24 w/rage)
Con 16 (18) (22 w/rage)

16, 10, 11, 10, 11, 10, 11 = 79, 93 while raging.
Dr 1/-

+1 Flaming Greatsword
+2 Gauntlets of Ogre Power
+2 Amulet of Health

+14 2d6+10 +1d6 fire

Looks fairly comparable to a hill giant to me. Not perfect, but comparable.

 

[Klaus]

Both 4E DMG, in special the second, have excelent advice for newcomer DMs (better than any other edition, if you ask me, even if 4E's far from perfect for me). Veteran DM's doesn't care too much about that...

And most people (I suppose) playes more than DM, so, people focus on player stuff...

I agree. Both 4E DMGs are excellent, and the Essentials DM's Kit is also very good. Both give advice and tools for the DM to run his games.

I prefer the 4e XP budget system to the 3e CR system, because the CR system assumes a party of 4 PCs, and if you have more or less PCs you have to adjust the party "level" to get the equivalent CR, etc.

The XP budget system immediately gives you the appropriate result based on the party you have, not on how your party relates to an idealized party. You can then spend your budget on a lot of lower-level foes, or go all-in with a single higher-level creature (regardless of it being an elite or solo).

 

[avin]

It seems that most people are missing that Roles were hated on 4E because reminded MMOs.

There has been roles before, I insist, on Prestige Classes and Kits, but never on classes. That may be seen as a restriction for a lot of people.

(Not judging, just pointing)

 

[billd91]

If it's done with the cleric getting all the healing magic they've had previously, and the fighter relying on the Treat Injury/Surgery skill/feat combination, I know which one is going to be vastly more useful. So do you. It works in SWSE because other sources of healing are extremely limited. If D&D is made to work that way, I predict people are going to be unhappy with the 'nerf' to clerics. Similarly with Nobles and their Leadership tree, compared to buff spells. It's not as good as magic, people will complain if magic is weakened, and while it provides lip-service to the idea that a class can take on a different role that class is for practical purposes only able to perform a very limited version of it.

If you aren't going to let classes perform a role competently, don't say that letting them be incompetent at something means you aren't pigeon-holing classes by role.

If there are multiple ways for the game to do things, some more effective than others, that doesn't imply that the ones less effective are actually incompetent. Make them all at least competent and there should be no problem. If clerics are the most effective at healing, but nobody wants to play one, that's not a problem as long as other classes people do want to play are reasonably competent.