CRs/ELs -- apparently the designers don't read the rules they talk about (old thread)

[Nifft]

And I'm going to take an even wilder stab and say that Mike Mearls has read, and does in fact understand, 3e rules.

Careful now, you're edging into probable assertion territory!

Cheers, -- N

 

[cougent]

These guys aren't playtesting their ability to roleplay, they're playtesting the *rules*.

When they can't even get *that* right as the OP pointed out, I think it casts doubts on everything thereafter.

 

[Zurai]

Maybe for illiterates.

The rest of us read the DMG, in which the second paragraph in the section on "Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels" talked about parties with more than four members in them. We also noticed the large and conspicuous "Table 4-2: Encounter Difficulty", which clearly laid out the fact that a 1st level party would be facing more than just EL 1 challenges.

Pretty ironic for you to accuse MerricB of being illiterate when you very plainly did not read what you quoted. He specifically said more than 4 MONSTERS and here you are prattling on about more than 4 people in the PC party.

 

[Rechan]

In my experience, not all CR/ELs are created equal.

Fine example, for at least 3.0:
Carrion Crawler: CR 4.
3 Carrion Crawlers: EL 7.

I sent a 7th level party (Two clerics, wizard, Fighter/Ranger) against three carrion crawlers. TPK by the fourth round.
+8 tentacle attacks at +3 a piece = on average 3 hitting AC. That means one must make 3 saving throws in a row, per round.

(Incidentally, with some clever DMing I managed to save the party without anyone being eaten.)

Same Party, two encounters later:
Necromancer 11: CR 11.

On the third round, the necro is hit with a Phantasmal Killer, fails both saves. Dies.

 

[Rechan]

Now this is just my opinion, but I believe the point that the "jerks" were making is that if WotC developers are going to use examples of how badly the 3E rules work in order to promote the "improvements" that they are making with 4E, that they might want to make certain to use the actual rules.

I realize that 3E bashing appears to be in vogue right now among many 4E supporters, but for some D&D players who actually like 3E, that attitude is getting rather stale.

Just an opinion.

Suggesting that there are flaws in the system = Bashing 3e?

"Bill, thanks for letting me borrow your car. But when I drive it, the front in vibrates and there's a knocking sound in the engine."
"STOP BASHING MY CAR, MAN!"
"But I'm just letting you know there's something wrong wit-"
"I enjoy this car! So what if it has flaws!"

If they aren't going to "Bash" 3E, then how do you propose they explain why they're changing something? And when they don't explain Why because "Then they're bashing 3e", other posters will start yelling "They're doing it without reason! It's just Change for Change's Sake!"

 

[Spatula]

The point is, the article's premise is based around factual errors.

If they aren't going to "Bash" 3E, then how do you propose they explain why they're changing something?

Telling the truth would help. 3E has plenty of flaws, but the CR/EL system doesn't work the way the author seems to think it does.

 

[Rechan]

The point is, the article's premise is based around factual errors.

So it's not "Bashing", just having flawed math?

Telling the truth would help. 3E has plenty of flaws, but the CR/EL system doesn't work the way the author seems to think it does.

When you say "Tell the truth", do you mean that Mearls is lieing, or just mistaken? You yourself says it doesn't work "the author seems to think it does"?

 

[Jhaelen]

The point is, the article's premise is based around factual errors.

I don't agree. I think the factual errors are not important enough to invalidate the point he's trying to make. It doesn't really matter if a goblin has CR 1/3 or 1/4.

Errors like this are absolutely typical for game designers because they confuse earlier (beta)versions of game rules with the ones that actually made it in the books. That's also the reason why we so often see wrong explanations in columns like 'sage advice'.

For Mr. Mearls 4E has already become the current edition for a long time, I don't think it's surprising if he gets a few (minor) things about the 'old' edition wrong.

Telling the truth would help. 3E has plenty of flaws, but the CR/EL system doesn't work the way the author seems to think it does.

The only thing you could accuse him of is the lie of omission.
I also had the impression that the point he's arguing is more from the perspective of a typical gamer than his personal perspective. How often have you seen threads asking questions about EL/CR or noticed people not knowing about that encounter table in the DMG?
I've seen dozens which means there probably have been hundreds or even thousands.

And as a concluding comment: Even if it's not a problem you've ever had in _your_ game, it might still be a good idea to make changes, so there will be fewer games over all that did have problems with it.

 

[delericho]

Suggesting that there are flaws in the system = Bashing 3e?

The thing is, while there are flaws in the CR/EL system, they aren't the flaws that Mike Mearls is talking about. He'd have been on much stronger ground if he'd commented about lone spellcasters being too weak for their CR, especially if they don't get time to prepare, or the difficulties of assigning CRs to powerful creatures generally, or what have you.

Heck, he could even have not talked about flaws in the system at all, but instead contrasted the "party vs one monster" style of 3e with the "party vs many monsters" style of 4e, and said that, on balance, the designers found the latter more fun.

Errors like this are absolutely typical for game designers because they confuse earlier (beta)versions of game rules with the ones that actually made it in the books. That's also the reason why we so often see wrong explanations in columns like 'sage advice'.

Very true. Although I might be tempted to suggest that, when writing something like "Sage Advice", a designer who knows his memory might be tainted by 'beta knowledge' should probably check the actual rules before posting from memory. Sage Advice is worse than useless if it is wrong more than about 1% of the time.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

I should clarify

I do think there's too much 3E bashing by the current 4E developers.

That said, this thread has prompted me to think about why I wrote what I posted.

I'm pleased that Mike Mearls is on the 4E team. Of everyone there, he's the person I have the most confidence in. It isn't really his comments that upset me, and it's pure coincidence that I wrote what I wrote in response to one of his articles.

The thing is, there are some other people on the 4E team, who I have way .less confidence in, mostly because their names are on the spines of 3E books that I bought then regretted purchasing, or simply because I don't think they have a sufficient 3E track record for me to evaluate them as a designer.

And when they tell me that D&D needs a radical change because 3E has too many problems, I

1) disagree

and

2) don't trust them to implement that change wisely.

I think we can all agree that 3E is in far better shape as a system than 2E was a decade ago. Yet, the 3E->4E changes being proposed seem just as radical as 2E->3E was.

Ken