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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greenfield" data-source="post: 7547629" data-attributes="member: 6669384">The accuracy/reliability of the CR system varies wildly based on the party makeup and, to a lesser degree, spell selection.  It's a guideline at best, and an outright fraud at worst.Still, in 1st ed, there was an undead (I don't recall which, might have been a minor demon/devil) on the 1st level "Wandering Monster" table that couldn't be hit without a magic weapon.  Never once saw a 1st level party with a magic weapon in it.  (At least not one that wasn't a power gaming joke.)<Edit>  I suddenly recall.  It was called a Mane. </Edit>Dragons in 1st ed were always seen (at least in the games I played in) as "Whoo-eee, lots of treasure".  You knew their hit points as soon as they breathed, and their size played against them since a party could swarm them from all sides.  They weren't really scary at all.  2nd edition changed that, but 3.* made them what they were supposed to be.  Part of the difference was Reach, as well as wing buffet and tail lash.  Giving them five attacks a round, and more than three breath weapons a day made a huge difference.I've noticed, over all, that every new version tries to "fix" the game balance by powering up the PCs.  3.* fixed the "Multi-class is the path to power" issue, which was good, and introduced a good skill system with fairly fine granularity.  Feats were also a good addition.  In first ed I could put together a 6th level fighter in ten minutes, mainly because every 6th level fighter had exactly the same attacks, saves and weapon proficiencies.  Except for armor, items and weapon choices, and they were plug-in interchangeable.  Same for Clerics and Thieves.  Wizards tended to vary more because (at least by the rules) their spell choices in their books was based on a dice roll.  They had to roll a % dice to see if they could learn a given spell.3rd Ed was more about choices, options in feats and styles and skills, a game where ability scores above abysmal and below epic still counted for something.4th edition, when it first appeared at least, seemed to be about a lack of choices.  Oh, you got to make some when the character was created, but after that your character was on a single track of advancement.  More advancement options were added later, but it was still very very restrictive.I've played some 5th, but probably not enough to really comment.  I remember finding it frustrating.  After our third TPK at the hands of what should have been minor monsters we got tired of having to start over again and again.  (Kobolds attacking at night gave them Advantage, if they were smart enough to pair up, and us disadvantage.  Third level party gone, start again.)  The group as a whole saw it as pointless and very unsatisfying.Pathfinder seemed like 3.5 on a power trip.  Many of the same flaws, scaled up, and an even poorer job of play testing.  (3.* was poorly tested, if at all, above 10th level.  Pathfinder authors admitted that they weren't worried about game balance at all, which is considerably worse, IMHO.)But this topic isn't supposed to be a gripe fest about different systems.I like the idea of treating minor monsters (those worth zero Exp by themselves) as "circumstance modifiers" for the bigger monsters.  It's fair and consistent with RAW, which I find appealing.</blockquote>

Verification