Challenge Rating Replaced With...What?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Because "Level" may have an actual mechanical meaning in the game math that they keep talking about?

Mechanical meaning in the game math? Could you explain that sentence a bit further? Also, if they called it pie, it would refer to the same game mechanics.

"Aww man, we got owned by a seven pie dragon last night."

I always got the feeling that CR/EL was designed for 3E because of DM misjudgement having had a negative impact on the fun of people playing in earlier versions of the game.

"Come on! What is wrong with you guys? You should be able to take an 8 or 9 pie dragon by now. It was only worth 34,850 XP. That's about the same as those two 4 pie ogres you beat last week."

 

[babomb]

We've secretly replaced this DM's challenge ratings with Folger's crystals. Let's see if he can tell the difference!

 

[Mouseferatu]

The thing about "challenge rating" is that, in 3E, it's more than just a sign of monster difficulty. It has a few very specific meanings to it.

1) It means that this monster should take up 25% of the resources of an average four-person party.

2) It changes the value of the monster's XP, depending on the levels of the characters fighting it.

If, in 4E, "level" lacks those two meanings, but is purely a measure of difficulty as compared to other monsters--a level 3 monster is tougher than a level 2 monster, but isn't mathematically determined to account for exactly X% of resources of a Y-sized party--then I think it's reasonable to have gone with a different term.

Since that's basically what "level" already means--a level 2 character is tougher than a level 1, a 4th-level spell is more powerful than a 3rd-level one--I'd say that using the same term, to mean the same thing, isn't a bad idea.

 

[helium3]

If, in 4E, "level" lacks those two meanings, but is purely a measure of difficulty as compared to other monsters--a level 3 monster is tougher than a level 2 monster, but isn't mathematically determined to account for exactly X% of resources of a Y-sized party--then I think it's reasonable to have gone with a different term.

The problem (and I suppose this is why they're game designers and I'm not) is that I can't understand how they would pull off this trick.

It always comes back around to the original problem that existed even in 1ED and 2ED. The DM has to have some way of determining whether or not a given monster is too tough or too weak for the party to handle, and from that extrapolates an appropriate amount of XP to give the party when they successfully deal with the challenge presented by that selection.

As the DM, I need to know whether or not a beholder is going to walk all over or get walked on by my party. I need to know if I can hit them with another beholder after they slice through the first. And then, once its all said and done, I need to have an idea of the appropriate amount of XP to award each of the players with that participated.

So, if there's some way of side-stepping this whole process (besides just sorta doing what I please and not worrying about the consequences) than I'm kind of curious as to what it is.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It always comes back around to the original problem that existed even in 1ED and 2ED. The DM has to have some way of determining whether or not a given monster is too tough or too weak for the party to handle, and from that extrapolates an appropriate amount of XP to give the party when they successfully deal with the challenge presented by that selection.

Well, there are a few ways to go about this.

One is the guideline itself. If I know that a level 3 monster is a little bit tougher than a level 2, and I know how my party did against a level 2, I have a rough idea how they'll do against a 3.

Part of it has to do with the new XP system. My understanding (which could be as flawed as anyone else's; I have no inside info here) is that each monster is worth a flat XP amount, as they were in older editions, and that's also a measure of difficulty.

My point, though, is that the system is built to answer your questions; it just does so in a way unlike the CR system of 3E.

That said, some of it is, and always will be, up to individual judgment. Unless every party is identical to every other of the same level--same classes, same choices, same magic items--then no system is going to be 100% accurate. (Even the CR system was only a rough guideline at best, IME.)

 

[wedgeski]

Who the hell actually played with 1 fighter, 1 rogue, 1 cleric and 1 wizard? I have yet to meet that game group and bet I never will. CR was predicated IMO preposterously according to this setup which is extremely limiting.

Challenge metrics have to be predicated on *something* and D&D itself dictates what that 'something' is. Healing exists. Vancian magic exists. Turning Undead exists. Traps which only Rogues can disable exist. All of these facts dictate what the baseline assumptions have to be. 4th Edition is obviously mixing things up... the assumptions are changing, and therefore the challenge metric is changing.

No-one is forced to play that party, but if you don't, the DM may have some changes to make. Knowing that *alone* makes the default party a worthwhile assumption.

The DM will make some undermached and overmached encounters and THAT IS GOOD.

Indeed, because that is what the DMG says you should do. Anyone who does otherwise is doing it wrong/badly.

DMs will have to use some trial and error. Amazingly I, and others, have been able to run successful campigns lasting over a decade without needing CR.

Experienced DM's can do this to their heart's content... new DM's need help. There's nothing worse than someone discarding the game because their first impression was of an encounter they had no chance of beating.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Mechanical meaning in the game math? Could you explain that sentence a bit further? Also, if they called it pie, it would refer to the same game mechanics.

I should have said "...in the game math in encounters."

In 3e, characters don't interact directly with a monsters CR - they interact with its AC, HP, attack bonus saves etc, most of which derive from its hit dice and type. If "level" in 4e determines a lot of derived stats for monsters (as it determines a lot of derived stats for PCs in 3e), then the level of a monster becomes more significant than just how many xp it's worth.

As for whether they should call it something else, such as "pie", I'm not sure. If "level" for characters determines the same values as "level" for monsters, then they should use the same term.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The problem (and I suppose this is why they're game designers and I'm not) is that I can't understand how they would pull off this trick.

It always comes back around to the original problem that existed even in 1ED and 2ED. The DM has to have some way of determining whether or not a given monster is too tough or too weak for the party to handle, and from that extrapolates an appropriate amount of XP to give the party when they successfully deal with the challenge presented by that selection.

As the DM, I need to know whether or not a beholder is going to walk all over or get walked on by my party. I need to know if I can hit them with another beholder after they slice through the first. And then, once its all said and done, I need to have an idea of the appropriate amount of XP to award each of the players with that participated.

So, if there's some way of side-stepping this whole process (besides just sorta doing what I please and not worrying about the consequences) than I'm kind of curious as to what it is.

Check my last post on the first page: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3767711&postcount=40

Note that it is speculation, but from what I read so far, it makes a lot of sense.

So, the "trick" they pulled off:
The monster level basically tells us: The attacks and spells of this monster can reasonably affect typical members of a party of its monster level. The party can also reasonably effect a typical monster of its level with its attacks and spells.
But the level won't tell me how dangerous its attacks and spells actually are. Maybe it is firing Melf's Acid Arrows, or it is firing Fireballs. Maybe it's cast Charm Person, maybe it casts Dominate Person. Maybe its attacks hit for 1d6+3 damage, or they hit for 2d10+15 damage. The point is just: it will hit, it can be hit, its spells have a chance to not be resisted by the characters, and it has a chance to fail to resist against spells cast by the characters.
(chance means "reasonable" chance, like around 50%)

The DMG will explain encounter design as something like "To put a easy encounter against a group of level N, it should be worth no more than X_easy. To put a challenging encounter against a group of level N, it should be worth no more than x_medium. To put a difficult, but survivable encounter against a group of level N, it should be worth no more than x_difficult."

A Level 10 Dragon (10,000 XP) and a Level 10 Brute Minion (5,000 XP) might look like this:
The Dragon has 4 meelee attacks at +15 attack bonus, dealing 2d6+11 points of damage. He has 200 hitpoints. His AC is 25 and his Saving throws are Reflex +8, Fort +13, Will +13
The Brute Minion has 2 meelee attacks at +15 attack bonus, dealing 2d8+6 points of damage. He has 120 hitpoints. His AC is 25. His Saving throw are Reflex +8, Fort +13, Will +8.

Both have the same level, because a party of level 10 will be able to hit each of them with spells and attacks, and they can also hit them in return. But the Level 10 Dragon has more attacks in will therefor deal more damage. He also has more hitpoints, meaning it will take longer to take him down.

In 3.5, this Dragon would have a higher CR than the Brute Minions. But if he would have been used against a group of its CR, he would have trouble hitting them, and the party would have a easy time doing the same. Which might make the system work as advertise, but it's not really that great. If you take 4 of these Dragons against such a party, the encounter would be supposed very challenging (EL = PL +4), but the actual play result would differ.

Note that the numbers are entirely made up, and the ratio of attacks/damage and hit points might actually not be reasonable, as doubling attack and hitpoints might in fact quadruple the dragons total "power".

Note also that this Dragon is clearly not a D&D 3.5 Dragon, because they are a lot stronger than that for their given level.
The designers even admitted that Dragons are more powerful than their CR indicates, because they are supposed to be "tough" encounters. Unfortunately, this is against the spirit of the CR system, and if a unaware DM uses a Dragon in a standard encounter, he and the party might be unpleasantly surprised with the results.

The new take would address this issue. You can have a strong monster suitable for a given level, and you can have a weak monster suitable for a given level.

I personally encountered the limits of the CR system a lot in the past.
Sometimes, I want to throw some PL=EL at the PCs. If I use a single monster, it is quickly overwhelmed, and doesn't feel like a challenge in the slightest. If I use multiple monsters, their attacks and armor classes are so weak that they never hit anyone and are also quickly destroyed. The end result is the same as with the single monster, the encounter wasn't challenging. Sometimes, it is okay, but if that's what always happens, it gets boring.
So, I make encounters more difficult and don't challenge the players with PL=EL encounters, but with EL = PL +2 or EL = PL +4 encounters. But this means they level a lot quicker, which isn't always what I want, either. (And I don't want to change XP rewards and then having to figure out what I do with treasture rewards)

 

[Plane Sailing]

It always comes back around to the original problem that existed even in 1ED and 2ED. The DM has to have some way of determining whether or not a given monster is too tough or too weak for the party to handle, and from that extrapolates an appropriate amount of XP to give the party when they successfully deal with the challenge presented by that selection.

Do you remember the old days of White Dwarf magazine when it used to be about D&D and other rpgs?

In issues 1-3 of White Dwarf (back in 1977) carried a series of articles by Don Turnbull about the 'monstermark'. The plan was to come up with a way of more accurately assigning the relative threat level of different monsters.

Basically, Turnbull worked out how long it would take a 1st level fighter with a longsword doing average damage to kill the creature (based on its AC and hit points), and then calculated the expected damage that the creature would do to an AC5 (chainmail clad) foe in the rounds that it had alive. This 'expected damage' figure was the Monstermark, and reflected a standardised average dangerousness.

The results of the calculations were very interesting - some creatures were much more dangerous than their 'greyhawk-based' level suggested, while others were quite over-rated.

The system catered for extraordinary abilities by adding multipliers for them - it was the weakest and most abstract part of the system, but still worked pretty well except for corner cases.

The monstermark was never used in purely mechanical terms (apart from saying obviously a MM of 243 is inappropriate for a 1st level party!) but it was very helpful for sorting out - guess what - appropriate levels for monsters to be rated as, so that the DM had a good idea of where they should sit. We used to use it for working out xp awards too (might have been 10*MM = xp value, but it was a long time ago so my memory is a little hazy...)

Cheers

 

[Plane Sailing]

So, the "trick" they pulled off:
The monster level basically tells us: The attacks and spells of this monster can reasonably affect typical members of a party of its monster level. The party can also reasonably effect a typical monster of its level with its attacks and spells.
But the level won't tell me how dangerous its attacks and spells actually are. Maybe it is firing Melf's Acid Arrows, or it is firing Fireballs. Maybe it's cast Charm Person, maybe it casts Dominate Person. Maybe its attacks hit for 1d6+3 damage, or they hit for 2d10+15 damage. The point is just: it will hit, it can be hit, its spells have a chance to not be resisted by the characters, and it has a chance to fail to resist against spells cast by the characters.
(chance means "reasonable" chance, like around 50%)

A very interesting point.

If you consider the Saga system, saves and defence pretty much scale with level directly alongside BAB and other stuff (although force attacks can be much nastier at low level and weaker at high level).

This would map very well onto the kind of idea that you are describing here.

Having monster level (+/- x) as the base for BAB, AC, saves, casting attacks and so forth - where x varies by monster role - would give you a really nice way of ensuring that monsters of a particular level are likely to be 'viable opponents' for PCs of a given level and a fairly wide spread either side of that level (something that I'm sure I've read one of the designers talking about).

Maybe Brutes would get Fort defence 10+level+4, Ref defence 10+level and Will defence 10+level-4, while Dragons would get 10+level+3 across the board or something, for instance.

Cheers