Challenge Rating Replaced With...What?

[Plane Sailing]

Hmm... if I can disagree with you there a moment, Henry...

#1 - They're making 30 levels core in the game. 1st edition had preogressions up into the high 20's. - actually, AD&D didn't really work beyond 12th level, and was written with the assumption that PCs would retire then. You can also see this with demihuman level limits.

If I can disagree with you there a moment, MerricB...

I've often heard this asserted, but don't believe it at all. OD&D (From Greyhawk supplement 1 onwards) had up to 9th level spells and rules for characters progressing all the way up to 20th level. Perfectly playable, we had adventures with characters in the 17-23rd level range at the top end and it was wonderful fun. The ONLY classes with level caps were monks (level 16) and druids (~14? I forget). demi-human level limits were always there, but that had nothing to do with the assumption that characters would retire.

If anything, the implicit assumption was that after about name level the PCs would build strongholds and get involved in politics and land clearances - different sorts of adventures to dungeon bashing, but still adventures. Certainly that is the way that I and all the UK groups I ever came across took it.

So for many (perhaps most) people, AD&D certainly did work past 12th level, and the game was written from nearly its very earliest days as OD&D to go past 12th level too.

I think you'd have to look at the basic/expert/blahdy/masters/immortals set to find something that expressley allowed for advancement beyond 20th though.

Cheers

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204434
"We tried to fool ourselves into the fact that there was a hard pricing, but we started recognizing that with MIC, that we should look at them more wholistically. There will not be magic item creation rules for DM’s as we realize that as professional game designers we don’t even get it right every time. We’re going to give you lots and lots of examples and suggest that you build it, test it, etc. "

*off topic*
This doesn't say they are removing item pricing. There will still be items with prices in the game, they just won't tell you how to make new ones without comparing to the existing ones.

And, to be realistic, using the item creation table in the DMG was ALWAYS a bad idea(or at least 90% of the time). I remember for the first year or two of 3e being out, I had to read endless threads about "Why is it that I can make an item that lets me cure light wounds at will for less than a wand of cure light wounds?" and "How come I can make an item that gives me displacement always on for WAY less than a cloak of displacement?" or "One of my players created a belt that gives him Heal always on for 5,000 gp and bought it at 5th level and now he heals 110 damage per round forever. Help, what can I do?"

The problem is that a chart like this can only really be made to handle relatively "normal" and basic situations. An item that gives +6 to strength can be made fairly easily. One that casts a specific spell whenever you are hit...not so much. Casting grease under your own feet every time you get hit by an enemy is a lot different in power to one that casts magic missile at an enemy every time you are hit. No chart can figure this out, however.

However, all the normal and basic magic items are already in the game. So, the only time you ever used the chart was when you were making up something weird. And the prices were always wrong.

Better to just give a rule like "Make up a number based on items already in the game" than give a chart that is almost always wrong.

 

[The_Universe]

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=204434

SKR summed up my feelings on the matter over on Monte's boards:

I must have missed that. In any case, I share your opinion of the change (and your agreement with SKR). Guidelines that work most of the time are better than no guidelines at all.

I wonder if there's a way to change the designers' minds on that one?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I must have missed that. In any case, I share your opinion of the change (and your agreement with SKR). Guidelines that work most of the time are better than no guidelines at all.

I wonder if there's a way to change the designers' minds on that one?

Well, there are still supposed to be guidelines, aren't there? They just don't come in mathematical formulas any more.

Anyway, I like the 3.5 magic item guidelines. But still, some things didn't make so much sense (that's why the were guidelines), and even some existing items aren't consistent with the system (Ring of Regeneration? Could be made cheaper with a Ring of Cure Minor Wounds for the most part. And if you didn't allow it, stacks of Cure Light Wounds Wands achieved the same)

But many of the magical abilities granted are also very formulaic.
"Cast spell A y/day" or "Cast spell Z y times". "Get the benefit of the feat B" "Get a +x bonus to AC/Damage/Attack/Skill/Save".
If such magical items become less typical in D&D ("The Big Six Are Gone"), maybe then the DMG guidelines as we have them today in 3.x lose a lot of their value...

 

[Baby Samurai]

If Saga is anything to go by, there will no more CR and ECL, just CL.

 

[Henry]

Well, there are still supposed to be guidelines, aren't there? They just don't come in mathematical formulas any more.

Again, it's something that reminds me of 1st edition (the DM put together guidelines for item creation, which the players followed, or created their own that was then approved by the DM); however, this one will likely be a LOT closer to 3E versions in that there still may well be a "money and spell" formula as example.