Challenge Rating Replaced With...What?

[Samnell]

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?

They've admitted that they're doing this with magic item pricing.

 

[Intrope]

Level.

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

IIRC, back in the 1st edition DMG there was a paragraph of explaination of the overload of the word 'level'; in which they had tried to use alternate descriptions (Rank, Order, Sphere, etc.) and found that it was incredibly confusing.

Besides, context really should be enough in most cases, especially given spell level is apparently becoming the same as character level.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Well, I can think of at least one interesting possibility, and that is that the DMG might include a whole bunch of "encounter zones" which add certain quantified threats or complications to an adventure AND have an associated xp value associated with it.

Thus to make up a 1000xp encounter you could choose 8 orcs (800xp) and the 'ravine ambush' encounter (200xp) which puts the orcs at the top of the ravine on either side and the PCs at the bottom. Maybe setting the encounter in the "rotating cogs of doom" would be worth an additional 3000xp instead

Cheers

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

So, isn't "monster level" just "challenge rating" with a hat on? In 4th ed, the challenge rating indicates something different than the challenge rating in 3rd ed, but it's essentially the same thing: an index of how hard it is to kill something. Why do we need to call it something else--especially using the word "level" to do it?

 

[helium3]

So, isn't "monster level" just "challenge rating" with a hat on? In 4th ed, the challenge rating indicates something different than the challenge rating in 3rd ed, but it's essentially the same thing: an index of how hard it is to kill something. Why do we need to call it something else--especially using the word "level" to do it?

Heh. Exactly. You say poe-tay-toe. I say poe-tah-toe. In the end, a monster that is easier to kill is worth less XP than a monster that is harder to kill. Unless they somehow muck with THAT axiom, it's the same system.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

So, isn't "monster level" just "challenge rating" with a hat on? In 4th ed, the challenge rating indicates something different than the challenge rating in 3rd ed, but it's essentially the same thing: an index of how hard it is to kill something. Why do we need to call it something else--especially using the word "level" to do it?

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

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I can see character level = monster level = spell level, but that only = class level for a single-classed character, and I don't see how you pull off = dungeon level.

 

[Sundragon2012]

How about building encounters based on the plot, the nature of the adversaries you have been using, the guestimated strength of the party, the terrain/environment and some good judgment? 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.

I played AD&D, and 2e and there was no CR or anything except some sort of monster level scheme that maxed out at Level 10 monster...needless to say, not much of a help. The fact is that encounters should be keyed to a variety of factors above and beyond CR. The DM will make some undermached and overmached encounters and THAT IS GOOD. Players should not have any particular expectation of automatic victory, they shouldn't be able to calculate, "Hey this encounter drained exactly 25% of our resources, cool."

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.



Sundragon

 

[jodyjohnson]

Dungeon level doesn't seem to be used that much anymore. ootS seems to perpetuate this more than actual WotC adventures.

Separate dungeon 'levels' (to use the 1e-2e term) are now usually given official names.

 

[cthulhu_duck]

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

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.