CR/EL System View

[mmu1]

Reading that, I can only assume that the players and monsters in your campaign do nothing other than attack with every available action, and that your campaign is nothing more than a exercise in hit point attrition.

I'm sure Celebrim will be happy to answer this, but I'd just like to point out the following:

It might be unfortunate (or not, depending on how you like your fights) but in D&D, the best thing 90% of the time is to simply hit the enemy with your best regular melee or ranged attack, or cast a spell. Lots of clever maneuvering, the use of trips, grapples, sunders and disarms can be useful - sometimes - but most of the time, while they might make the fight more colorful and enjoyable, they actually end up reducing combat effectiveness.

This has nothing to do with how one runs a campaign, and everything with D&D mechanics - which is why it's the primary consideration when trying to discuss a mechanical approach to determining challenge like the CR system.

 

[Celebrim]

Reading that, I can only assume that the players and monsters in your campaign do nothing other than attack with every available action, and that your campaign is nothing more than a exercise in hit point attrition.

You are free to assume whatever you want. No one can't stop anyone else from assuming whatever they want to assume, no matter how completely silly it is.

For example, I am free to assume that you are so stung with embarassment for not having understood the obvious relationship between 4:1 and 1:1 that you feel the need to make some snarky attack on my character and DMing maturity instead of admitting that I might have had a point. If I assumed that, then you could really do nothing to convince me my assumption was false because I'm free to hide behind my assumptions like a indurate tower shield of proof against learning just like anyone else is. That's just the nature of making assumptions.

On the other hand, you can stop making assumptions and notice that since what is under discussion is in fact whether the difficulty of a combat challenge can be concretely measured, it makes sense to assume that the challenge is a concrete one. Naturally, a monster of any CR can in theory be avoided or negotatied with and so forth, but such larger game concerns don't influence our choice of CR since they depend on assumptions about how such monsters will be used (for example that Deva's will be friendly or Orcs hostile) which are not consistant between campaigns or even situations. It's up to the DM to decide whether such alternative approaches to a challenge warrant story awards or not, and whether in such cases the CR of the monster is a good guide to the size of the story award, but all of that has rather little directly to do with the topic.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It might be unfortunate (or not, depending on how you like your fights) but in D&D, the best thing 90% of the time is to simply hit the enemy with your best regular melee or ranged attack, or cast a spell. Lots of clever maneuvering, the use of trips, grapples, sunders and disarms can be useful - sometimes - but most of the time, while they might make the fight more colorful and enjoyable, they actually end up reducing combat effectiveness.

This has nothing to do with how one runs a campaign, and everything with D&D mechanics - which is why it's the primary consideration when trying to discuss a mechanical approach to determining challenge like the CR system.

Interesting that in calling out alternatives to attacking with every action, you zeroed in on... other kinds of attack actions.

 

[greywulf]

CR/EL is badly broken, but I still use it as a rough guideline when planning encounters. OK, that's a lie. I look at the creature's stats and abilities, weigh them up against my character's abilities, then look at the CR to see if it's remotely accurate. Sometimes it is, but usually it isn't.

CR/EL exists so we DMs have something to cross-reference against a dumbass table at the end of the encounter to award XP. I've had players have the fight of their life against kobolds and the table says they should get pitiful XP for it. Another time they'll top a Giant in three rounds and get an XP boost to die for. There's no correlation betwen CR and how the combat plays out, so I just fudge it. Heck, I don't even look at the table any more, and don't think I know a DM who does. So CR is redundant. It's not used for planning, and not used for XP awards.

Where CR/EL is useful is for inexperienced DMs as a guideline while they're getting the feel for the game. That's not to decry anyone who's using it as being in anyway "less-clever" than me, before the flames start again - I'm just saying it's a good, helpful tool if you need it. If you don't, that's cool too.

I'd like to see it replaced with a mechanism which is usable for all DMs. AND something that's calculable instead of being pushed into WoTC's mystical black box of being "an art, not a science". Oh, please.

Why can't we just have monsters with an XP total at the bottom which is the sum of their hp, 10xAC and 5xthe number of their special abilities. Or anything, anything but some number which all too often seems to be picked out of thin air. Whether the CR is right or not purely depends on your gaming style. Give us an equation and we can fiddle with it to suit.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

On the other hand, you can stop making assumptions and notice that since what is under discussion is in fact whether the difficulty of a combat challenge can be concretely measured, it makes sense to assume that the challenge is a concrete one.

CR is only useful as a concrete, mathematical measurement of "combat expectation."

What you seem to be missing is all of the factors that go into CR beyond BAB, hit points, and damage-- and no, I'm not talking about whether or not you can negotiate your way past a fight.

The second, third, fourth, and subsequent "special ability" of a monster has less and less of an impact on its CR because a creature still gets only one action per turn. A creature with the ability to attack, sneak attack, heal, and cast a buff spell is not equal to a typical party of four, despite the fact that it can mimic the singular abilities of any one of them.

Your view of CR simply as a measure of how well combatants can trade blows back and forth until one of them is dead by attrition will limit your ability to use CR and EL as a predictor. That is not a flaw in the CR system.

 

[Fishbone]

Nobody else wanted to type Hellcock? Nobody? Well that is a shame.
Other Creatures that I think would whup an 8th level NPC Fighter's ass...
10 HD Remorhaz
14 HD Huge Cloaker
Tyranosaurus
17 HD Assassin Vine
Classed Barghest
11 HD Huge Belker
12 HD Bulette
12 HD Aboleth
4 9 HD Dire Wolves who took Improved Trip
2 13 HD Ettercaps
15 HD Chuul
An 8th level Wizard, Cleric, Sorcerer, Archivist, Druid, Favored Soul, heck, anything that fullcasts, really.
See, that was too easy. I can really go for days here.

 

[BryonD]

Your view of CR simply as a measure of how well combatants can trade blows back and forth until one of them is dead by attrition will limit your ability to use CR and EL as a predictor. That is not a flaw in the CR system.

Exactly

The classic "I use it wrong, therefore it doesn't work" reasoning.

I never use CR as a strict system. But it works well enough. And the relative measure built into it is vastly better than prior systems.

 

[mmu1]

Interesting that in calling out alternatives to attacking with every action, you zeroed in on... other kinds of attack actions.

Interesting how you fail to actually post anything concrete, and just make snide comments about others' lack of imagination.

Care to provide any examples of these things you hint at, that'll actually relate in some meaningful and concrete way to the CR or EL system?

Ideally without misrepresenting what others are saying.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Interesting how you fail to actually post anything concrete, and just make snide comments about others' lack of imagination.

Care to provide any examples of these things you hint at, that'll actually relate in some meaningful and concrete way to the CR or EL system?

Ideally without misrepresenting what others are saying.

The ability to fly.

 

[mmu1]

Exactly

The classic "I use it wrong, therefore it doesn't work" reasoning.

I never use CR as a strict system. But it works well enough. And the relative measure built into it is vastly better than prior systems.

No, more like a "Since it doesn't assign CRs accurately based on something as simple and concrete like trading blows and losing through HP attrition, it's completely nonsensical to assume that attempting to factor in things that are difficult to quantify will somehow make it work better." reasoning.