Dire Tigers CR is WRONG.....

[AuraSeer]

Quite frankly, because some people can't eyeball CR, or even EL, worth a darn.

When a DM can't judge difficulty by eye, this system doesn't help. He still needs to work out "situational modifiers" by eye. It's the same problem under a different name.

If there were a comprehensive list of all possible situations and modifiers, then the system would be of use to those DMs. It would then be too unwieldy for common use.

(Example: If some of the party has fire resistance, another is fire-immune, and half the rest have SR, what's the situational modifier against a fire elemental? Against a water elemental? Against a monster with lots of spell-like fire powers? If the fire-immune PC also flies, do the modifiers stack when facing a nonflying melee-only fire creature? What if that nonflying creature has a spellcasting ally with access to fly?)

 

[Upper_Krust]

UK,

Hey Coredump mate!

I have been reading the pdf, and will gladly share my opinions once I am done.

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.

There are suggestions for formatting, but nothing too major.

I keep forgetting most of you people are seeing an earlier version of the pdf. The layout has been tweaked since that version.

As for 'disdain of core'; I think it comes from your very adamant stance that core CR is 'totally broken' (not quoting you directly). Part of the problem is that it seems to work pretty well at 'core' levels, and (apparently) only really falls down at Epic levels. You may want to stress that distinction a bit more.

Sure, okay.

You lose credibility from some people when their personal experience shows that core CR works pretty well, and you claim it is majorly missing things.

Indeed, even though some of the fundamentals are wrong I would agree most people will be comfortable with the core rules.

(and, having Anubis as one of your most vocal supporters doesn't help. )

Anubis means well but sometimes (as I am sure he would admit himself) his diplomacy skills lack...finesse shall we say.

As for 'extra work': I think the issue is if your method is *so* much better that it warrents someone having to sit down and recalculate all the monsters they already have, along with learning a new method of refering/thinking of CR/EL/etc.
That said, from what I remember, you were planning on doing that already. So all I would have to do is look at your list for the new, revised CR.

Absolutely. I'll have every Monster Manual and Epic Level Handbook monster and template listed in the final version.

I am not sure if all caught this. Theoretically, I don't need to know your CR system at all, just like I don't know the one WotC used.

Thats right. The Challenge Rating factors are there for people who want to design or modify their own creatures.

For the Immortals Handbook another one of the reasons I needed a precise CR system to allow deities to create and modify creatures. But this works well as a tool for DMs as well.

 

[kreynolds]

Exactly why EL situational modifiers need to be addressed.

Definately.

But given the number of vauge duties of the DM, I don't see eyeballing encounter difficulty as out of the realm of normal.

I didn't say it was out of the realm of normal. I simply said some people can't do it worth a darn. I think this system could teach them.

Of course, tools to help me along are nice (comments on creatures having too low or high of CR) but replacing the entire system seems to be excessive.

If the system doesn't work (as the current does not work at high level), then it needs to be replaced. Personally, I don't think its that bad. I just think UK's system works _better_. His system doesn't remove "the art" of DMing. It simply removes most of the guesswork, and guesswork is of no use to anyone.

YMMV, and obviously does.

Eh?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hiya mate!

Three things:

First, why is everybody having problems with the situational modifiers?

Perhaps because its one ambiguous point in a system that otherwise explains everything in minute detail.

Even in its incomplete state it's child's play to understand.

I seem to recall initially even you had issues with some of the systems finer points. So its hardly inconceivable for people to want things as simple as possible.

After finding out the EL, add or subtract based on outside factors. If the PCs have complete forknowledge of the encounter, make it maybe EL -2. If the PCs all prepared in advance with Fly spells and dropped globes from a Necklace of Fireballs on an enemy camp, EL -4. If the PCs are caught in the middle of the night with no time to prepare, EL -2 for a low-magic party and EL -4 for a normal party. Pretty simple I think. Just modify the final number as appropriate.

Second, can we all please remember that party composition has absolutely no effect on the CR of a monster? If it such a huge factor (such as a Cleric of Pelor against undead), give it a simple situational modifier (usually EL -2).

Well I wouldn't bandy about modifiers to EL quite so liberally. Remember that an EL difference of +/-2 is akin to doubling/halving the number of opponents!

Third, why are half of all the criticisms about the format and such?

Well remember you are one of the few people who downloaded Version 3 mate (because of a thread mix up). Most other people here are reading Version 1 which I would admit has some layout issues.

To me, that sounds like ya'll are having a very tough time actually finding problems with the system.

Nevertheless all feedback, regardless of how minor is appreciated.

Also, all such problems have all been general. You should try actually calculating out some monsters yourself and see first-hand how accurate the numbers are save for the Ghoul. (I couldn't resist, UK!)

The Ghoul* is right you chancer!

*CR 3

 

[kreynolds]

When a DM can't judge difficulty by eye, this system doesn't help.

I can think of two really good reasons why most DMs would judge by eye: 1) good experience, or 2) because they have had no other choice. This system gives you a choice. Also, if you suck at eyeballing, I can easily see a system like this helping. Why? Simple. Because it doesn't make you eyeball that much.

 

[kreynolds]

Well remember you are one of the few people who downloaded Version 3 mate (because of a thread mix up). Most other people here are reading Version 1 which I would admit has some layout issues.

I managed to grab it as well. Why don't you just update the attatchment in the thread?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi LokiDR mate!

He said the situational modifiers were not complete? I thought he said the DMG had a good list. My bad.

Playtesting and feedback suggested that such a list was necessary. As I keep reiterating the Version most of you are reading is months old.

If I misunderstood the math, it shows a weakness in formatting. CR 4 means EL of 9, from one of the tables. APL 5 means PEL 1 for a for person party, also from a table. PEL + 8 = EL means very difficult, from a table.

Appendix Table 1-1a outlines exactly how CR and EL relate to each other.

Party Level represents a Challenge Rating; which, as with all CRs is then applied to the Encounter Level Table.

Its this relationship between CR and EL that is the crux of my system.

Seemingly though I have to make that clearer.

I actually like the font, it is nifty. But I want most titles to be more readable than nifty.

In the latest version its only used for larger headings.

Of course, this is all IMO.

Appreciate the feedback mate!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

There are no listed out side factor numbers.

Everything else in the system seems wrapped up in numbers. The accuracy not withstanding, there are whole lot of elements of a character that are figured in. More than a full page in small font. This makes the lack of situational modifiers glaring.

If you are willing to make these modifications to EL, why is eyeballing CR a problem? If you eyeball CR, there is no need for UK's system. A complete treatment of CR, ECL, EL and experience is neccessary for the system to be complete. Of course, UK has already said the EL modifiers are forthcoming.

Absolutely.

Party composition, in general, doesn't have an effect on EL. Only a fool would say this is true in general practice. If a party of 4 PCs were all immune to fire, fire based creatures are much less effective. I have seen parties entirely immune to one or more elements.

By the way, pg 137 of the DMG says it is harder to fight undead without a cleric, but it doesn't fix a number to it.

Don't worry I'll sort all that out, I already have the basics outlined. I think I can solve everything with a handful of common denominators.

If our only gripe was formatting, maybe. But not talking about formatting when I discuss all other elements of the article would be incomplete and not help UK as much. I don't wish him ill for creating an alternate CR system. I would be glad if it succeeded. So I give him all my thoughts on the subject and let him use all the information.

Much appreciated mate.

As for accuracy, I don't have a real problem with the standard system. I would say a prepared spellcaster is much higher EL than their level. Certain creatures should have a tweaked CR, like dragons. But I have used it as a guide for the past year and half of DMing, and there are many other elements of the game I think need improvement first.

Hey! One thing at a time!

Time for Enterprise, I'll reply to the rest of the posts later.

 

[LokiDR]

If the system doesn't work (as the current does not work at high level), then it needs to be replaced. Personally, I don't think its that bad. I just think UK's system works _better_. His system doesn't remove "the art" of DMing. It simply removes most of the guesswork, and guesswork is of no use to anyone.



Eh?

I like the guesswork. There is no math that will tell you if the players will enjoy a particular trap, plot, or encounter.

We obviously disagree about the skills DMs need, hence YMMV, but that is fine. If this was all clear cut and we all agreed, I wouldn't get to argue

 

[kreynolds]

I like the guesswork.

You sick, sick, sick little man!!!

There is no math that will tell you if the players will enjoy a particular trap, plot, or encounter.

Of course not, and UK's system does not promise nor contain such math. It makes no claim of the sort. That's where the "art of DMing" comes in. However, can you deny that bad eyeballing could adversely affect a player's enjoyment of the game?

We obviously disagree about the skills DMs need, hence YMMV, but that is fine. If this was all clear cut and we all agreed, I wouldn't get to argue

Hehe. Very true.