Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Challenge Rating Replaced With...What?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 3768490" data-attributes="member: 710"><p>Check my last post on the first page: <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3767711&postcount=40" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3767711&postcount=40</a></p><p></p><p>Note that it is speculation, but from what I read so far, it makes a lot of sense.</p><p></p><p>So, the "trick" they pulled off: </p><p>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. </p><p>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.</p><p>(chance means "reasonable" chance, like around 50%)</p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>A Level 10 Dragon (10,000 XP) and a Level 10 Brute Minion (5,000 XP) might look like this:</p><p>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</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p>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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I personally encountered the limits of the CR system a lot in the past.</p><p>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.</p><p>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)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mustrum_Ridcully, post: 3768490, member: 710"] Check my last post on the first page: [url]http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3767711&postcount=40[/url] 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) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Challenge Rating Replaced With...What?
Top