Dire Tigers CR is WRONG.....

[WizarDru]

Re: UK - thoughts on your system

As for your PDF, I think it suffers some significant issues. The titles are in a hard to read format. The drop-shadows used on the page border titles are distracting from the text. I shouldn't have to work to identify the chaper title. The side notes are sloppy, and occasionally insulting. No person who could understand your system would not understand the <= symbol. You forward reference several places (like "see next section") which is a horrid tatic. You should be more up-front about your redefinition of terms like EL in the first place, rather than leaving people with the conception of EL and CR from the DMG untill nearly 2/3rd of way through the article.

I mentioned this before, and I'll reiterate it now...the layout of this document does not serve it well. As I told you before, UK, the font is difficult to read and distracting, the drop-shadows interfere with the text and the layout is both somewhat confusing and ugly. The material is dry and dense enough, without the layout of the document making it more undesirable.

As I said before, your system may work beautifully...but the amount of work it requires for precious little extra benefit seems to be self-defeating, to me. I'm glad to hear that you're planning on expanding the situational modifiers section, because right now, it's next to useless. If I have to fudge that much information, it's of no more use than normal CR and my understanding of the threat involved.

And for the record, Fenes 2 may have been the first to actually say it, but I assumed it was understood you held active disdain for the rules in question. Your text is very dismissive of the original work, and I assumed this was intended, so I didn't bother to comment on it. My players have reviewed the material, and their reaction was generally the same...at least, those who could actually spend time trying to penetrate it.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Re: Re: UK - thoughts on your system

Hi WizarDru mate!

I mentioned this before, and I'll reiterate it now...the layout of this document does not serve it well. As I told you before, UK, the font is difficult to read and distracting, the drop-shadows interfere with the text and the layout is both somewhat confusing and ugly. The material is dry and dense enough, without the layout of the document making it more undesirable.

I just realised something. I already changed the layout somewhat from the version you are all reading. I was thinking everyone here was commenting on the latest version (in front of me) and forgot that the link provided is to the earliest version.

DOH!

As I said before, your system may work beautifully...but the amount of work it requires for precious little extra benefit seems to be self-defeating, to me.

I don't see this 'extra work'.

I'm glad to hear that you're planning on expanding the situational modifiers section, because right now, it's next to useless.

Agreed.

If I have to fudge that much information, it's of no more use than normal CR and my understanding of the threat involved.

I'll have the situational common denominators working great but I would doubt they will be a necessity for the majority of encounters.

And for the record, Fenes 2 may have been the first to actually say it, but I assumed it was understood you held active disdain for the rules in question.

Don't you mean LokiDR?

Your text is very dismissive of the original work, and I assumed this was intended, so I didn't bother to comment on it.

You should have mentioned it. I appreciate all constructive criticism mate.

My players have reviewed the material, and their reaction was generally the same...at least, those who could actually spend time trying to penetrate it.

I'll work harder on the simplicity of the thing.

 

[Fenes 2]

Hi there Fenes 2!



You do that for every encounter?

I doubt I have missed any elements or factors!?

If you have a method that works for you then I say great.

But not everyone does, and added to that I would also venture you are not running an epic campaign wherein the official rules quickly disintigrate.

Yup, for every major combat encounter. Mind you, I usually have one major combat encounter per session at the most, and usually use classed NCPs not monsters, which makes the balancing much easier.

The elements you have missed are the specific tastes and motivations of my PCs and players. Our duelist/blade dancer, f.e., will judge an enemy's suitability as an honorable opponent before engaging in single combat, and may stay out of "mindless slaughterfests" even if that means the barbarian will be hard-pressed to overcome the foes ("He is a paid body-guard, it is his job"). The barbarian on the other hand may not choose the most effective tactic depending on the enemy, and may blindly charge forward. The knight may fight more defensively than needed, and fall back for some healing when hit.

And yup, I don't run an epic campaign, and have no intention to - at least not an ELH-epic campiagn.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again Fenes 2!

Yup, for every major combat encounter. Mind you, I usually have one major combat encounter per session at the most, and usually use classed NCPs not monsters, which makes the balancing much easier.

Indeed.

The elements you have missed are the specific tastes and motivations of my PCs and players. Our duelist/blade dancer, f.e., will judge an enemy's suitability as an honorable opponent before engaging in single combat, and may stay out of "mindless slaughterfests" even if that means the barbarian will be hard-pressed to overcome the foes ("He is a paid body-guard, it is his job").

Excellent. Kudos to the player!

The barbarian on the other hand may not choose the most effective tactic depending on the enemy, and may blindly charge forward. The knight may fight more defensively than needed, and fall back for some healing when hit.

Glad to see your players are enjoying themselves and that CR isn't an issue for you.

And yup, I don't run an epic campaign, and have no intention to - at least not an ELH-epic campiagn.

Thats what I suspected.

 

[Coredump]

UK,
I have been reading the pdf, and will gladly share my opinions once I am done. There are suggestions for formatting, but nothing too major.

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

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. 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.

 

[Anubis]

Three things:

First, why is everybody having problems with the situational modifiers? Even in its incomplete state it's child's play to understand. 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).

Third, why are half of all the criticisms about the format and such? To me, that sounds like ya'll are having a very tough time actually finding problems with the system. 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!)

 

[LokiDR]

Loki, while I am still weighing how I feel about the pdf, I think you may have misinterpreted a few things.

First, UK has stated a few times that he still has to do the situational modifiers; they are not being ignored, just not completed yet.

Second, I cannot be sure while sitting here, but I think the Salamder/5thlevel party scenario is messed up; I think you missed something there.

Third, I can just about bet that the ECL for a template is not meant to be calculated every level.

I do agree, at least to an extent, regarding most of the 'formatting and style' comments you made; but I really like the funky font used.

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

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.

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

Of course, this is all IMO.

 

[LokiDR]

Three things:

First, why is everybody having problems with the situational modifiers? Even in its incomplete state it's child's play to understand. 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.!)

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.

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).!)

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.

Third, why are half of all the criticisms about the format and such? To me, that sounds like ya'll are having a very tough time actually finding problems with the system. 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!)

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.

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.

 

[kreynolds]

If you are willing to make these modifications to EL, why is eyeballing CR a problem?

Quite frankly, because some people can't eyeball CR, or even EL, worth a darn. If you look at the DMG and UK's system as guidebooks to teach CR and EL, I think UK's is far more comprehensive, as not only does it arm you with the basic understanding of CR and EL, it arms you with precision, rather than "Oh, I guess this number will do". Just my opinion though.

 

[LokiDR]

Quite frankly, because some people can't eyeball CR, or even EL, worth a darn. If you look at the DMG and UK's system as guidebooks to teach CR and EL, I think UK's is far more comprehensive, as not only does it arm you with the basic understanding of CR and EL, it arms you with precision, rather than "Oh, I guess this number will do". Just my opinion though.

Exactly why EL situational modifiers need to be addressed.

Art or science, DMing isn't the easiest task to do well. Some are better at it than others. But given the number of vauge duties of the DM, I don't see eyeballing encounter difficulty as out of the realm of normal. 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. YMMV, and obviously does.