Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coredump" data-source="post: 915195" data-attributes="member: 6939">UK, After reading this thread, I have a few suspicions.I suspect that part of the issue with communicating is that you not only have changed the CR system, but also (necessarily) changed some of the term definitions. For me, at least, those changes were not obvious and led to some initial confusion.I suspect that actually *reading* your system may clear those up. This confusion may extend to others you are trying to explain the system to.I assumed the 'original' CR threads were just full of people whining; had I realized this was the discussion, I would have joined it earlier.Now, with the caveat and apology that I am posting before actually reading your pdf; there are two issues that I don't think will change upon reading.First: One of the claims of the 'Art' of DMing is that party make-up can make a large impact on the difficulty of an encounter. You seem to disagree with the concept of any 'art' being involved,  yet you do agree on the premise  Which agrees that party make-up (specialization) can change the challenge of an encounter.While your system may be better than core; it will still lack the ability to predict the composition of the party. As this thread started, a player was complaining about a Dire Tiger, yet depending on party make-up (NOT overly specialized) it may have been much easier. Same with the scorpion mentioned.I believe that the core system was designed with your above quote in mind, that on average, things will balance out.  Given an 'even' enounter (20% resources) some parties will have the classes/skills/magic/luck/whatever to hardly bat an eye; while others may have to spend 50% of their resources, and that may include a party member.The difference is that the latter group comes in here screaming about how the CR system sucks.Even using your 'improved' (quotes because I have not read it yet) system, an EL of +4 may be 50/50 for some/most; but will be easy for others, and a TPK for others still. They same can be said for any of the levels. Having mage heavy/tank heavy/range heavy/whatever heaving may have a large impact. Be prepared for the compaints from those that found the 50/50 to be a cakewalk, or a TPK to come in here and bitch about how "WRONG" your CR system is.Second: I believe you (though it may have been another) was discussing how a monster CR should match what their ECL would be if used as a PC race.I strongly disagree.A CR level is designed with the concept that this creature will be fighting a group of PC's. There are things that will not make a monster stronger, yet would be an incredible boon to characters. (or possibly vice versa)What about a monster that only needed to meditate for one hour to recover all hit points. This would mean little as an opponent, since they will not likely have a chance to get away to meditate. yet it would be incredibly powerful for a character. I would expect the ECL to be higher than the CR for this.Or how about a creature that is 'always' found in a certain environment (water, jungle, whatever) It may have powers/abilities that make it a very challenging creature, but only in that environment. Shouldn't the ECL reflect this limitation?Well, I will try and read your pdf.  Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this..</blockquote>

Verification