Challenge Rating Replaced With...What?

[Beckett]

Going by what I remember from the Secrets of D&D seminar at GenCon, I'm pretty sure monsters will have levels similar to character levels.

For encounter building, I distinctly remember the designers (I think it was Mearls speaking) saying you would choose how much an encounter is supposed to be worth, then pick monsters until they equal that experience value. So, for a 4000xp encounter, you might grab a 1000xp monster, 2 monsters worth 700xp, and 2 worth 800xp.

 

[Moggthegob]

I am curious how this is going to work. I dont think flat xp is necessarily a bad thing but I like how the system allowed you to account for terrain and a disadvantageous or advantageous position by. i would like to see maybe a flat xp for those things or some thing. I don't honestly know hoe to do it without CR but guess thats why I'm not designing dnd 4e.

 

[Glyfair]

I dont think flat xp is necessarily a bad thing but I like how the system allowed you to account for terrain and a disadvantageous or advantageous position by.

There is just no way a system can account for all of the possibilities besides suggesting the DM adjust experience for these things (ala 3E).

 

[Ilium]

Regardless of what system WotC uses to rate monsters, the DM's hand will still have to be applied liberally. 10 orcs all armed with falchions can be a very different encounter from 5 orcs with falchions and 5 with longbows, even though I assume both would have the same "level."

And, as an aside...Level? Yet another meaning of the same word? Buy a thesaurus, people!

 

[Gundark]

I like to KNOW when I'm probably throwing a TPK at my party. I mean, it may not STOP me from throwing a TPK at my party, but I'd at least like to be able to do it on purpose instead of by accident.

No way accidental TPK's are the best!!!

 

[The_Universe]

Going by what I remember from the Secrets of D&D seminar at GenCon, I'm pretty sure monsters will have levels similar to character levels.

For encounter building, I distinctly remember the designers (I think it was Mearls speaking) saying you would choose how much an encounter is supposed to be worth, then pick monsters until they equal that experience value. So, for a 4000xp encounter, you might grab a 1000xp monster, 2 monsters worth 700xp, and 2 worth 800xp.

That's a good explanation, and if it actually works that way, I'm going to like it.

 

[JVisgaitis]

This begs the question...how will GMs in 4e know what creatures represent an appropriate challenge for their party?

Doesn't CR just get replaced with monster levels? Didn't they mention somewhere that monsters just have levels now or am I smoking crack? Not sure how this will play into groups of monsters, but I wouldn't be displeased at this point. I think its more from a lack of information on the subject then WotC not having it figured out. I would guess that a very workable CR-like system would be pretty high on their priority list.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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?

I honestly don't know what was said or not said regarding FR specifically, so I can't answer that.

But I wanted to respond and give you much credit for being willing to acknowledge faulty info when it's pointed out. A lot of people online refuse to do so; kudos to you.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Level.

'Cause we really need a fifth definition for "level"! Character level, class level, monster level, spell level, dungeon level ...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Doesn't CR just get replaced with monster levels? Didn't they mention somewhere that monsters just have levels now or am I smoking crack? Not sure how this will play into groups of monsters, but I wouldn't be displeased at this point. I think its more from a lack of information on the subject then WotC not having it figured out. I would guess that a very workable CR-like system would be pretty high on their priority list.

I think it is not the same. In D&D 3.x, a monster level = CR gives you exactly how many XP it grants for a giving party, and against what kind of parties you are supposed to use it.

I am only infering from what I read so far, but I think it works basically this way:
A typical encounter for a party of characters of level n will include monsters with a level of n, with their total XP value being x.
Some monsters will bring less, and some more XP to the table.
The level indicates what kind of party the monster can hope to affect meaningful (hit somewhere 50 % of the time, cast spells at with this chance of success and so on), and what kind of party can hope to affect the monster meaningful (hit somewhere 50 % of the time, cast spells at wich this chance of success and so on). (Note. The actual success chances are probably a bit different, skewed in favor of the players)

A monster that gives out few XP will probably not last long, deal less damage and have weaker spells, while a monster with a high XP value will last longer, deal more damage and use stronger spells or have more abilities that it can use per round or during the encounter as a whole (see the Dragon encounter example for how this might look like).