Challenge Rating Replaced With...What?

[WhimsyTheFae]

Not to sound adverse, but I prefer to just "play it by ear". Not a good answer, but it's how I like to operate. I tried using CR, but I just never really liked it (probably because I didn't follow the wealth-by-level guidelines, so I'd have characters who were under-powered or over-powered - but, I liked that).

 

[Morrus]

I don't want to be jerk to point this out, but.....well, I just be a total jerk and point this out.

About the release of 4E.

Winter Fantasy 2007: Various WOTC people stated:

1. 4E was still quite a ways away.
2. They were not actively working on 4E at this time (Feb 07)
3. 4E will come eventually come but 3.5 sales will still brisk and that the future release schedule of 3.5 products would reflect that
4. Any important information about D&D will be announced at Winter Fantasy instead of GenCon.

This comments were heard at the D&D seminar at Winter Fantasy.
....

Read the quotes again.

1) True. It was 18 months away.
2) "Actively working on a D&D that required miniatures" was the quote. True again.
3) Not sure where you're going with that - you're disputing sales figures? You know something we don't?
4) The quote was "...the show currently known as Winter Fantasy will be the primary place to push D&D", not "the only place we'll mention our D&D plans is D&D Experience". I thnk you'll find that there's a LOT of D&D stuff, events, seminars, previews, at Winter Fantasy. For example, it's the first place they'll be showcasing the final rules.

Please, folks, feel free to express displeasure at actual valid information - but attributing quotes to WotC and then criticizing them for the quotes you just made up is not going to fly here. At least, if you're going to publicly attack someone for something, do them the courtesy of a bit of fact-checking first (which isn't the same as "I seem to remember someone saying they read something about....")

[Edit - Mouseferatu beat me to it, but only because I was getting links! ]

 

[Howndawg]

This begs the question...how will GMs in 4e know what creatures represent an appropriate challenge for their party? We've heard that encounter design is supposed to get easier...but if CR is going away, how will that actually happen? Surely the designers don't think that DMs prefer to guess relative power level based on hit die, or something!?

I know there've been a lot of complaints about the unreliability of CR and EL over the years...but it's one of my favorite parts of D&D. If it's going away, I need to know it's going to be replaced with a similar indicator of power level that will make my DMing life easier.

This is the first 4e tidbit that makes me genuinely displeased.

Actually, challenge ratings are one of the things I hate most about 3e. Not that I don't like knowing if monsters are an appropriate challenge, but CR's are based on the players having a balanced party and "appropriate" wealth for their level. Now in some gaming groups, balanced parties are the norm, but in most groups I've played in, player quirks and preferences means that sometimes a key role is not well represented. In parties where almost everyone plays a warrior type, some monsters are going to be too easy while others are too difficult.

As to wealth by level, in every 1e and 2e campaign I've been in, the amount of wealth is the DM's decision. The CR system hard wired a certain wealth level into the game and made it difficult for DM's to hand out items as best befits their campaign.

Goodbye CR's. I won't miss you.

Howndawg

 

[BlackMoria]

Thank you, Mouseferatu. I stand corrected on that.
(and that is meant with absolutely zero sarcasm)

I apologize for perpetrating improper information.

Am I off base with the disconnect with the statement by Rich Baker on not messing in a major way with the existing campaign settings and the implication based on narratives from the Orc King that the world (FR) has changed in a major way?

 

[F4NBOY]

Goodbye CR's. I won't miss you.

Same here.
So long CR. I hope you find Skip and devour his brain

 

[Grazzt]

How about we trust the DM's judgement. And if 1st level characters encounter a mind flayer/beholder/great wyrm they run like hell?

You mean...go back to the way it was all those years before the "be all, end all" CR stuff was introduced? Egads man....

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

I am willing to bet that a fourth level character can fight a fourth level monster. Also, this likely means that the same monster's minions (let's say, 4 first level monsters) are an equal challenge to 1 fourth level character.

Just a wild stab.

 

[The_Universe]

I must admit I'm continually amazed about the lack of trust being shown to the WotC guys. The_Universe, I have to ask, did you think they were just going to rip CR out and not replace it with anything?

I assumed not, but since the absence was confirmed and the replacement wasn't, I thought I'd ask here.

 

[The_Universe]

There will be a value in the monster stats for that, based on a brand new system for tailoring combats that's easier, simpler and better.

Because the new system will let you tailor combats with multiple different monsters with different power levels much faster than making all that crazy calculation with different CRs.

Surely not.

Good!

 

[Morrus]

Thank you, Mouseferatu. I stand corrected on that.
(and that is meant with absolutely zero sarcasm)

I apologize for perpetrating improper information.

Am I off base with the disconnect with the statement by Rich Baker on not messing in a major way with the existing campaign settings and the implication based on narratives from the Orc King that the world (FR) has changed in a major way?

Yes, in the sense that you're talking about an "implication", and that 'Points of light in a dark world' does NOT refer to existing settings -- Rich Baker: "One quick point of clarification I'd like to make... Don't assume that we're going to apply the 'Points of Light' conceit to existing campaign worlds. I think Realms and Eberron would prosper if they got just a little more points-of-lightish, but we're not going to overthrow worlds with that much breadth and history."

So wondering about an implication is one thing; blasting WotC for something you're merely inferring is another. Just because a novel has some blurb about it doesn't mean the FRCS is going to change. Heck, maybe it does, but we have no indication that it might, and definite indication that it won't. Maybe salvatore will set a novel 1000 years in FR's past next; doesn't mean the setting is changing.